Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 10:35:35 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.  Really well put.
And yes, so true.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 10:52:41 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? An excerpt:
"I’m quite sure that “Jed” is merely a construct of the author’s imagination and therefore, the book is fictional, written under a pseudonym. I’m not alone in my thinking that in constructing his book and authorship in such a way to essentially hide behind his words, “Jed McKenna” or whoever the actual author may be, is demonstrating a certain hypocrisy.
These books are written about a guy who clearly ‘thinks’ he’s enlightened by a guy or gal who may or may not actually be. The character, Jed McKenna seemingly contradicts himself over and over again. His actions show him to be vastly overstating his said current state of awareness. Then again, I at times wonder if perhaps the book was written to demonstrate certain fallacies and pitfalls inherent in the very belief of oneself to be enlightened or fully awakened, "fully cooked" In Jed's words. With no author in sight to further explain or elaborate, I will have to be content with speculating. The thing I enjoy most about this book is it attempts to demystify spiritual awakening. The Jed character irreverently lays to rest all beliefs about enlightenment requiring any personal identification with any set religion, deity or rituals. In short, he removes the 'woo-woo' from the idea of awakening. No doubt, what the author accomplishes in pointing out the ridiculousness of cloaking enlightenment in mystery and myticism is no small feat. He does a wonderful job of stripping enlightenment bare of old, tenaciously held to ideas about truth realization that attach it to religious ritual and new age doctrine. However, it seems he's stripped enlightenment bare of those ideas, only to reattach some of his own. The "I am so spiritually enlightened and you can tell because of the mystical practices I engage in" stance is really no more enlightened that the "I am so spiritually enlightened and you can tell because of the disdain I have for all so called mystical practice." What good is it to reveal one facade, just to replace it with another? Jed's brash, cocky, "I am so beyond all the B.S. of the average Joe," is just as much a facade as the one the new age mystic cloaks himself within. " |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2019 16:04:12 GMT -5
The American cultural voice is known for bluntness and irony. Also, after all these years, if the events actually were true, someone would have found hard evidence of the farmhouse -- but that's what I think was the point: a collective message/messenger koan. I've always been amused by all the speculation. deleted at tano's request Hey tano! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2019 16:10:23 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. Only read the first, and that because I bought it for someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 20:36:55 GMT -5
An excerpt: "I’m quite sure that “Jed” is merely a construct of the author’s imagination and therefore, the book is fictional, written under a pseudonym. I’m not alone in my thinking that in constructing his book and authorship in such a way to essentially hide behind his words, “Jed McKenna” or whoever the actual author may be, is demonstrating a certain hypocrisy.
These books are written about a guy who clearly ‘thinks’ he’s enlightened by a guy or gal who may or may not actually be. The character, Jed McKenna seemingly contradicts himself over and over again. His actions show him to be vastly overstating his said current state of awareness. Then again, I at times wonder if perhaps the book was written to demonstrate certain fallacies and pitfalls inherent in the very belief of oneself to be enlightened or fully awakened, "fully cooked" In Jed's words. With no author in sight to further explain or elaborate, I will have to be content with speculating. The thing I enjoy most about this book is it attempts to demystify spiritual awakening. The Jed character irreverently lays to rest all beliefs about enlightenment requiring any personal identification with any set religion, deity or rituals. In short, he removes the 'woo-woo' from the idea of awakening. No doubt, what the author accomplishes in pointing out the ridiculousness of cloaking enlightenment in mystery and myticism is no small feat. He does a wonderful job of stripping enlightenment bare of old, tenaciously held to ideas about truth realization that attach it to religious ritual and new age doctrine. However, it seems he's stripped enlightenment bare of those ideas, only to reattach some of his own. The "I am so spiritually enlightened and you can tell because of the mystical practices I engage in" stance is really no more enlightened that the "I am so spiritually enlightened and you can tell because of the disdain I have for all so called mystical practice." What good is it to reveal one facade, just to replace it with another? Jed's brash, penisy, "I am so beyond all the B.S. of the average Joe," is just as much a facade as the one the new age mystic cloaks himself within. " Thanks. I agree, he does a good job in demystifying certain aspects of spirituality and that he replaces it with his own personal model of enlightenment, which is more than questionable. His model of enlightenment, which is based on his personal mental breakdown story, is at odds with basically every tradition, and not because all these traditions are just a bunch of hokum as Jed wants to make his readers believe, but simply because what Jed thinks enlightenment is, actually isn't. ETA: What I also noticed is that somehow the emails of his student(s) read exactly like what Jed writes, it's basically identical in style, syntax and vocabulary (including overuse of expletives). Do you think he just made up those emails and dialogs? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 20:41:01 GMT -5
Of course, there is a house, and exactly how and where it was described to be. Here is the actual photo: And here is the description form the book: "Legally, I am the owner of the house. It's a stately and ornate gentleman farmer's house with plenty of room, built in 1912. The story goes that two well-to-do gents had eyes for the same dame, so they each built the nicest house they could. [xxx]
The house is in east central Iowa, about twenty miles from Iowa City and half an hour from the Mississippi River. We're lucky that
there's some nice roll to the land here, not completely flat like parts of Iowa can be. We have a few wooded acres and a dozen unwooded acres, a creek (the Minnissippi River), a small pond, and we're surrounded by farmland on all sides. An island in a sea of corn. The house has wrapping porches, sweeping eaves, and numerous decorative features for which I don't know the correct terminology. The inside is full of built-in cabinets with glass-front shelving, oak floors, ceiling beams and the kind of detailed craftsmanship that people say you can't find anymore.
Anyway, it's an admirable old house and I haven't seen its like during my dozen or so years in Iowa. That's not to say that it's the biggest or the best or anything like that, just that it's unique and special. Most importantly, it's quiet. The nearest neighbor is more than a mile away, and the nearest paved road is five miles away, well out of earshot and eyeshot."
Cheers.
Hey Tano! I just read Shawn's review of Jed's books again, he writes: So let's assume we've got the house. What about the people? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 20:43:27 GMT -5
Only read the first, and that because I bought it for someone else. Ah, that explains it. And there I was wondering how Laffy could so stubbornly cling to this prankster theory after what Jed has written in the second and third book. I thought, even though Laffy my have a soft spot for fellow pranksters, he can't be that naive! Another mystery solved. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 21:27:51 GMT -5
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'. Here's what Shawn writes about the second book: I agree with Shawn, the (self-?)adulation is off the charts. On one hand he teaches to think for yourself and trust no one, but on the other hand he proudly presents himself surrounded with sycophants. Even one of his book covers was a nuclear bomb on it if I recall Yeah! Now there's a view from outer space, with a dog picture (probably his dog 'Maya'). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2019 21:30:49 GMT -5
Destroying ego
Jed: The process of spiritual autolysis has three basic parts: Seeing what needs to be killed, killing it, and cleaning up the mess. Seeing is really the first stage of killing, but the third part is just as important as the first two; you have to clean up after yourself. You must process the loss.
The process of awakening looks like it’s about destroying ego, but that’s not really accurate. You never completely rid yourself of ego—the false self—as long as you’re alive, and it’s not important that you do. What matters is the emotional tethers that anchor us to the dream state; that hold us in place and make us feel that we’re a part of something real. We send out energetic tendrils from the nexus of ego like roots to attach ourselves to the dream state, and to detach from it we must sever them. The energy of an emotion is our life force, and the amount of life force determines the power of the emotion. Withdraw energy from an emotion and what’s left? A sterile thought. A husk. In this sense, freeing ourselves from attachment is indeed the process of awakening, but such attachments aren’t what we have, they’re what we are.
Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Chapter 24
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 22:16:14 GMT -5
An excerpt: "I’m quite sure that “Jed” is merely a construct of the author’s imagination and therefore, the book is fictional, written under a pseudonym. I’m not alone in my thinking that in constructing his book and authorship in such a way to essentially hide behind his words, “Jed McKenna” or whoever the actual author may be, is demonstrating a certain hypocrisy.
These books are written about a guy who clearly ‘thinks’ he’s enlightened by a guy or gal who may or may not actually be. The character, Jed McKenna seemingly contradicts himself over and over again. His actions show him to be vastly overstating his said current state of awareness. Then again, I at times wonder if perhaps the book was written to demonstrate certain fallacies and pitfalls inherent in the very belief of oneself to be enlightened or fully awakened, "fully cooked" In Jed's words. With no author in sight to further explain or elaborate, I will have to be content with speculating. The thing I enjoy most about this book is it attempts to demystify spiritual awakening. The Jed character irreverently lays to rest all beliefs about enlightenment requiring any personal identification with any set religion, deity or rituals. In short, he removes the 'woo-woo' from the idea of awakening. No doubt, what the author accomplishes in pointing out the ridiculousness of cloaking enlightenment in mystery and myticism is no small feat. He does a wonderful job of stripping enlightenment bare of old, tenaciously held to ideas about truth realization that attach it to religious ritual and new age doctrine. However, it seems he's stripped enlightenment bare of those ideas, only to reattach some of his own. The "I am so spiritually enlightened and you can tell because of the mystical practices I engage in" stance is really no more enlightened that the "I am so spiritually enlightened and you can tell because of the disdain I have for all so called mystical practice." What good is it to reveal one facade, just to replace it with another? Jed's brash, penisy, "I am so beyond all the B.S. of the average Joe," is just as much a facade as the one the new age mystic cloaks himself within. " Thanks. I agree, he does a good job in demystifying certain aspects of spirituality and that he replaces it with his own personal model of enlightenment, which is more than questionable. His model of enlightenment, which is based on his personal mental breakdown story, is at odds with basically every tradition, and not because all these traditions are just a bunch of hokum as Jed wants to make his readers believe, but simply because what Jed thinks enlightenment is, actually isn't. ETA: What I also noticed is that somehow the emails of his student(s) read exactly like what Jed writes, it's basically identical in style, syntax and vocabulary (including overuse of expletives). Do you think he just made up those emails and dialogs? As I've said, my criticisms are no longer quite as harsh as they were back when I wrote that review. I don't actually see his 'model of enlightenment' to be necessarily at odds with every tradition as you do. I think he talks about enlightenment using different language but what's being pointed to, is essentially the same. And I don't think Jed would say what's at the core of all those traditions is itself 'hokum,' but rather, the adherence to and reverence of tradition itself, is.
Re: the email issue; Oh yeah, my sense is the whole story is fictional...thus, those emails and dialogues are part and parcel of the fictional story of an enlightened, irreverent due named Jed who seekers admire and flock towards, but who refuses to call himself 'a teacher.'
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2019 22:48:47 GMT -5
Only read the first, and that because I bought it for someone else. Ah, that explains it. And there I was wondering how Laffy could so stubbornly cling to this prankster theory after what Jed has written in the second and third book. I thought, even though Laffy my have a soft spot for fellow pranksters, he can't be that naive! Another mystery solved. I'll leave the stubborn clinging to those with well-researched and thought-out conclusions they can back up with their depth of knowledge on the topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2019 22:52:05 GMT -5
Destroying ego
Jed: The process of spiritual autolysis has three basic parts: Seeing what needs to be killed, killing it, and cleaning up the mess. Seeing is really the first stage of killing, but the third part is just as important as the first two; you have to clean up after yourself. You must process the loss. The process of awakening looks like it’s about destroying ego, but that’s not really accurate. You never completely rid yourself of ego— the false self—as long as you’re alive, and it’s not important that you do. What matters is the emotional tethers that anchor us to the dream state; that hold us in place and make us feel that we’re a part of something real. We send out energetic tendrils from the nexus of ego like roots to attach ourselves to the dream state, and to detach from it we must sever them. The energy of an emotion is our life force, and the amount of life force determines the power of the emotion. Withdraw energy from an emotion and what’s left? A sterile thought. A husk. In this sense, freeing ourselves from attachment is indeed the process of awakening, but such attachments aren’t what we have, they’re what we are. Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Chapter 24 an eyebrow raiser, but not much different from other things he wrote in the first book that did the same. Ultimately, for me, a live dialog is necessary to take away the benefit of any doubt from acknowledging the insight that is there. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 2, 2019 0:48:58 GMT -5
What all seekers really want
Jed: Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment isn’t one kind of enlightenment; it’s the only kind. There’s no enlightenment in the dream and breaking out of the dream is a muddy, bloody business. That’s the bad news. The good news is that enlightenment isn’t what anyone really wants anyway.
Take a close look at Captain Ahab, the Break-Out Archetype. Are you ready to play that role? It doesn’t matter how you answer because it’s not a role we choose. Ahab didn’t choose the role. Julie didn’t choose it. I didn’t. Who would? Who could? It’s idiotic, but what’s more than that, it’s silly.
What I’ve called Human Adulthood in these pages, however, is something we can choose. Human Adulthood is what all seekers really want, and it’s not silly.
Jed McKenna, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Epilogue
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 2, 2019 0:56:53 GMT -5
Ah, that explains it. And there I was wondering how Laffy could so stubbornly cling to this prankster theory after what Jed has written in the second and third book. I thought, even though Laffy my have a soft spot for fellow pranksters, he can't be that naive! Another mystery solved. I'll leave the stubborn clinging to those with well-researched and thought-out conclusions they can back up with their depth of knowledge on the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 2, 2019 12:28:18 GMT -5
I'll leave the stubborn clinging to those with well-researched and thought-out conclusions they can back up with their depth of knowledge on the topic. |
|
