|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 31, 2019 7:09:28 GMT -5
Jed McKenna is to nonduality what The Archies are to rock and roll, what Patterson is to literary fiction, what zazeniac is to poetry, what Enigma is to frogdom, what Laffy is to porn studs. Poor imitators. I have so much more to say, but I shouldn't. He reminds me of the frat guys that used to come to party at this boarding home I lived in with several beautiful female foreign students, not the Delta guys from Animal House, but the prissy Omega Theta Pi guys.LOL. I always got the impression that he had studied 1990s Tarantino films and decided to write his own Tarantino-esque enlightenment book, mainly with impressionable youngish guys in mind, but not exclusively so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 7:40:09 GMT -5
Jed McKenna is to nonduality what The Archies are to rock and roll, what Patterson is to literary fiction, what zazeniac is to poetry, what Enigma is to frogdom, what Laffy is to porn studs. Poor imitators. I have so much more to say, but I shouldn't. He reminds me of the frat guys that used to come to party at this boarding home I lived in with several beautiful female foreign students, not the Delta guys from Animal House, but the prissy Omega Theta Pi guys. Isn't he just saying that you don't need to go to a particular place, either geographically or culturally, to find truth? Actually that piece Reefs quoted is palatable. I suffered one of his books. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 20:01:51 GMT -5
Jed McKenna is to nonduality what The Archies are to rock and roll, what Patterson is to literary fiction, what zazeniac is to poetry, what Enigma is to frogdom, what Laffy is to porn studs. Poor imitators. I have so much more to say, but I shouldn't. He reminds me of the frat guys that used to come to party at this boarding home I lived in with several beautiful female foreign students, not the Delta guys from Animal House, but the prissy Omega Theta Pi guys.  ... gotta' say though, those last two quotes were pretty good. It's possible to find fault with them, but not unambiguously.  Pure gold, really.
Funny how much I now appreciate the over the top, irreverent humor....whereas before the attitude kinda browned me off  ....seemed not only unnecessary, but indicative of someone who thinks he's enlightened, who actually isn't.
Whoever the author is, I say he wrote the Jed character as a smug arsehole to drive home the point that enlightenment is not what you think it is....it's not piousness and sanctimony.....if you had an irreverent sense of humor prior to SR, that will likely continue post SR. It'll just get a little saltier.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 20:03:56 GMT -5
Jed McKenna is to nonduality what The Archies are to rock and roll, what Patterson is to literary fiction, what zazeniac is to poetry, what Enigma is to frogdom, what Laffy is to porn studs. Poor imitators. I have so much more to say, but I shouldn't. He reminds me of the frat guys that used to come to party at this boarding home I lived in with several beautiful female foreign students, not the Delta guys from Animal House, but the prissy Omega Theta Pi guys.LOL. I always got the impression that he had studied 1990s Tarantino films and decided to write his own Tarantino-esque enlightenment book, mainly with impressionable youngish guys in mind, but not exclusively so. Yeah! That fits. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2019 20:41:57 GMT -5
... gotta' say though, those last two quotes were pretty good. It's possible to find fault with them, but not unambiguously. Pure gold, really.
Funny how much I now appreciate the over the top, irreverent humor....whereas before the attitude kinda browned me off ....seemed not only unnecessary, but indicative of someone who thinks he's enlightened, who actually isn't. Whoever the author is, I say he wrote the Jed character as a smug arsehole to drive home the point that enlightenment is not what you think it is....it's not piousness and sanctimony.....if you had an irreverent sense of humor prior to SR, that will likely continue post SR. It'll just get a little saltier. I've just finished the third book and the reoccurring thought I had while reading, especially the later books, was "That's pure Enfigma!" So, I'm not surprised by your positive reception of the books. No doubt, Jed is fluent in non-dualese. But what does that mean? What does it mean on the forum when someone speaks non-dualese fluently? Sometimes it just means that, that they are really good at speaking non-dualese. And I think that's the case here with Jed as well. Because if there's one thing I am missing most in the books then it is depth. While I have no doubt that his stories about the waking up process and the spiritual circus are based on actual real life experience, I've seen no actual indicators that Jed's understanding of non-duality goes beyond the mere theoretical/conceptual. That's why I actually think that (in essence) the Jed character in the book is just like the real guy who wrote the books, give and take some minor alterations/exaggerations here and there. Notice also that Jed doesn't actually write much about enlightenment (or SR). What he writes about most is the first step, the waking up process. Actual enlightenment, as Jed says, is 'further down the road'. But that's what all the books are about - waking up - how to do it and what to expect when it happens. And so what is written in those books about spirituality is almost exclusively written from the perspective of psychotherapy, not non-duality. And I think that's the reason why many find the books so disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2019 21:12:34 GMT -5
Pure gold, really.
Funny how much I now appreciate the over the top, irreverent humor....whereas before the attitude kinda browned me off ....seemed not only unnecessary, but indicative of someone who thinks he's enlightened, who actually isn't. Whoever the author is, I say he wrote the Jed character as a smug arsehole to drive home the point that enlightenment is not what you think it is....it's not piousness and sanctimony.....if you had an irreverent sense of humor prior to SR, that will likely continue post SR. It'll just get a little saltier. I've just finished the third book and the reoccurring thought I had while reading, especially the later books, was "That's pure Enfigma!" So, I'm not surprised by your positive reception of the books. No doubt, Jed is fluent in non-dualese. But what does that mean? What does it mean on the forum when someone speaks non-dualese fluently? Sometimes it just means that, that they are really good at speaking non-dualese. And I think that's the case here with Jed as well. Because if there's one thing I am missing most in the books then it is depth. While I have no doubt that his stories about the waking up process and the spiritual circus are based on actual real life experience, I've seen no actual indicators that Jed's understanding of non-duality goes beyond the mere theoretical/conceptual. That's why I actually think that (in essence) the Jed character in the book is just like the real guy who wrote the books, give and take some minor alterations/exaggerations here and there. Notice also that Jed doesn't actually write much about enlightenment (or SR). What he writes about most is the first step, the waking up process. Actual enlightenment, as Jed says, is 'further down the road'. But that's what all the books are about - waking up - how to do it and what to expect when it happens. And so what is written in those books about spirituality is almost exclusively written from the perspective of psychotherapy, not non-duality. And I think that's the reason why many find the books so disappointing. Depth seems to me a non-issue in terms of the crux of Jed's material: realization and the end of seeking. That said, having realized the existential truth at the end of seeking doesn't necessarily qualify someone to lead other's to it, and it does seem to me that depth is an issue in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2019 21:14:47 GMT -5
LOL. I always got the impression that he had studied 1990s Tarantino films and decided to write his own Tarantino-esque enlightenment book, mainly with impressionable youngish guys in mind, but not exclusively so. Yeah! That fits. don't see it, what with all of Q's puerile gore and violence. In the end, Jed's tone - at least in the first book - strikes me at the bottom line as rather serious and somber. And that's despite all the obvious levity and deliberate posturing/puffery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 23:46:35 GMT -5
I've just finished the third book and the reoccurring thought I had while reading, especially the later books, was "That's pure Enfigma!" So, I'm not surprised by your positive reception of the books. Oh, that 'positive reception' is a little more of a patchy nature than you seem to be assuming. I've done some in-depth reviews that are not altogether 'glowing,'and although my judgements might have lessened somewhat since then, there are still some I stand by. Yeah, can't say I've come to any definite conclusions regarding that stuff. It's all speculatory. Sounds like you had a pretty strong negative reaction. When I read the 1st book years ago, that was my reaction too. I've now softened quite a bit in my judgements. Generally speaking, we cannot pigeon-hole enlightenment....even though it can at times be tempting to try. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 1, 2019 6:51:24 GMT -5
Yeah! That fits. don't see it, what with all of Q's puerile gore and violence. In the end, Jed's tone - at least in the first book - strikes me at the bottom line as rather serious and somber. And that's despite all the obvious levity and deliberate posturing/puffery. Tarantino cut together quite random scenes (and dialogue) for the purpose of character development only i.e not integral to the plot. In fact, plot was secondary to character and the kind of characters he drew, and appealed particularly to youngish guys. Similarly, uniquely to the enlightenment book industry, instead of a bunch of educational chapters about enlightenment, what we had was a lot of character development (and dialogue). We had quite random scenes about skydiving, campfires, being in a park....and I think in the second one, there was a dinner party towards the beginning (I got bored and stopped reading the second). And although 'enlightenment' was the overall theme, 'Jed' became the talking point after. Ironic really. I would go so far as to say a 'cult of Jed' was created, complete with imitation overly macho personalities dropping 'Truth bombs' everywhere... 'Truth at all cost', 'Burn it all down', 'The brutal and uncompromising Truth'. Even one of his book covers was a nuclear bomb on it if I recall Entertaining with a bit of insight but largely a load of tosh imo....also reminds me a bit of 'woke culture' in the last couple of years. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2019 7:39:00 GMT -5
don't see it, what with all of Q's puerile gore and violence. In the end, Jed's tone - at least in the first book - strikes me at the bottom line as rather serious and somber. And that's despite all the obvious levity and deliberate posturing/puffery. Tarantino cut together quite random scenes (and dialogue) for the purpose of character development only i.e not integral to the plot. In fact, plot was secondary to character and the kind of characters he drew, and appealed particularly to youngish guys. Similarly, uniquely to the enlightenment book industry, instead of a bunch of educational chapters about enlightenment, what we had was a lot of character development (and dialogue). We had quite random scenes about skydiving, campfires, being in a park....and I think in the second one, there was a dinner party towards the beginning (I got bored and stopped reading the second). And although 'enlightenment' was the overall theme, 'Jed' became the talking point after. Ironic really. I would go so far as to say a 'cult of Jed' was created, complete with imitation overly macho personalities dropping 'Truth bombs' everywhere... 'Truth at all cost', 'Burn it all down', 'The brutal and uncompromising Truth'. Even one of his book covers was a nuclear bomb on it if I recall Entertaining with a bit of insight but largely a load of tosh imo....also reminds me a bit of 'woke culture' in the last couple of years. Well, the woke are all about facing down the dark and offensive evil spirits of the past, while Jed, on the other hand, is almost self-consciously insensitive to prior spiritual convention and any offense he might cause by writing counter to that convention. So while I don't see the connection between woke and Jed (other than terminology) I guess you could say that both QT and Jed have in common a deliberate irreverence, and another commonality is a wry edge to their sense of humor. The Jed author or author's is/are (a) prankster(s), and the practical joke is on anyone who gets ensnared into a debate about whether Jed is enlightened or what his identity is or whether he's real or any of the other of a few dozen reactions the books seem to evoke.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 1, 2019 7:54:48 GMT -5
Tarantino cut together quite random scenes (and dialogue) for the purpose of character development only i.e not integral to the plot. In fact, plot was secondary to character and the kind of characters he drew, and appealed particularly to youngish guys. Similarly, uniquely to the enlightenment book industry, instead of a bunch of educational chapters about enlightenment, what we had was a lot of character development (and dialogue). We had quite random scenes about skydiving, campfires, being in a park....and I think in the second one, there was a dinner party towards the beginning (I got bored and stopped reading the second). And although 'enlightenment' was the overall theme, 'Jed' became the talking point after. Ironic really. I would go so far as to say a 'cult of Jed' was created, complete with imitation overly macho personalities dropping 'Truth bombs' everywhere... 'Truth at all cost', 'Burn it all down', 'The brutal and uncompromising Truth'. Even one of his book covers was a nuclear bomb on it if I recall Entertaining with a bit of insight but largely a load of tosh imo....also reminds me a bit of 'woke culture' in the last couple of years. Well, the woke are all about facing down the dark and offensive evil spirits of the past, while Jed, on the other hand, is almost self-consciously insensitive to prior spiritual convention and any offense he might cause by writing counter to that convention. So while I don't see the connection between woke and Jed (other than terminology) I guess you could say that both QT and Jed have in common a deliberate irreverence, and another commonality is a wry edge to their sense of humor. The Jed author or author's is/are (a) prankster(s), and the practical joke is on anyone who gets ensnared into a debate about whether Jed is enlightened or what his identity is or whether he's real or any of the other of a few dozen reactions the books seem to evoke. The similarity I see between Jed culture and woke culture, is that they both arose out of a truth...out of something valid... and yet in both cases, the culture itself is quite at odds with the truth, and....to be honest, often makes me cringe! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 8:45:34 GMT -5
Oh, that 'positive reception' is a little more of a patchy nature than you seem to be assuming. I've done some in-depth reviews that are not altogether 'glowing,'and although my judgements might have lessened somewhat since then, there are still some I stand by. Interesting. Got a link? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 9:56:40 GMT -5
Well, the woke are all about facing down the dark and offensive evil spirits of the past, while Jed, on the other hand, is almost self-consciously insensitive to prior spiritual convention and any offense he might cause by writing counter to that convention. So while I don't see the connection between woke and Jed (other than terminology) I guess you could say that both QT and Jed have in common a deliberate irreverence, and another commonality is a wry edge to their sense of humor. The Jed author or author's is/are (a) prankster(s), and the practical joke is on anyone who gets ensnared into a debate about whether Jed is enlightened or what his identity is or whether he's real or any of the other of a few dozen reactions the books seem to evoke. I think we have to make a distinction between the first book and the later books. In the first book, he does indeed adopt the role of a prankster. And at the end of the book you are left wondering how much of what has been said was just in jest or for real. The later books are different. That's where you see the real Jed and where he tells you very clearly about the purpose of the books. The official purpose is to put the enlightened state on display and expose spiritual fairy tales. Another purpose is to give seekers some kind of manual with a foolproof method that actually does work (spiritual autolysis). There's also another purpose he's been alluding to: writing the books has been some kind of self-therapy for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 9:58:50 GMT -5
The similarity I see between Jed culture and woke culture, is that they both arose out of a truth...out of something valid... and yet in both cases, the culture itself is quite at odds with the truth, and... .to be honest, often makes me cringe!Funny that you say that. I had some similar reactions, I'd call them face-palm-moments. I think the main mistake Jed made is thinking the way the awakening process unfolded for him is the way, the only possible way. Basically, he had a mental breakdown and worked his way out of it with sheer will-power and self-determination, and logic above all (spiritual autolysis)! He obviously had a breakthrough of some sort. He thinks it is enlightenment. But to me it looks more like he fell into the solipsism trap, because despite all his assurances and disclaimers to the contrary, he keeps arguing for separation. That is painfully obvious where he talks about his relationships and how he moves thru life. And this constant (and unconscious) arguing for separation is probably the reason why what he says doesn't ring true (even though he uses all the right words and phrases) and why it feels like there's a lack of depth to what he says. Hard to explain. When reading Niz or ET, it feels like an organic whole, when reading Jed it feels like bits and pieces glued together, something superficial or synthetic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 10:31:45 GMT -5
Yeah! That fits. don't see it, what with all of Q's puerile gore and violence. In the end, Jed's tone - at least in the first book - strikes me at the bottom line as rather serious and somber. And that's despite all the obvious levity and deliberate posturing/puffery. Yeah, I get that. My analysis there didn't terribly deep in agreeing with Andrew...I was more just acknowledging the 'in your face/irreverant' similarities. I've only seen a coupla Q's movies and am still not entirely sure how I feel about those. |
|
... gotta' say though, those last two quotes were pretty good. It's possible to find fault with them, but not unambiguously. 
....seemed not only unnecessary, but indicative of someone who thinks he's enlightened, who actually isn't. 
