Jed

[Dan Rowden]

Well, at the very least they know they stand to lose that to which they may be highly attached or in which they have a lot of themselves invested.

[Unidian]

No doubt.

On a semi-related note, I'm interested in learning more about Jed's concept of "human adulthood." It seems to me that we could use a lot more of that sort of thing. Conventional society is remarkably childish in many ways. Can anyone explain the details of "human adulthood" briefly or point me to some of Jed's own material on the topic?

[guest_of_logic]

David, I intend on replying to you, I just have a few other things to get around to first.

Better late than never...

I've decided not to defend my post against your reply, not out of capitulation but because I don't think that it would be a fruitful exchange. Instead I want to focus on one particular thing that you wrote:

The enlightened person still has a self. His consciousness still makes use of the self-construct. The difference is, he is no longer fooled by it.

Getting to the root of your (QRSH's) attitude towards, and message on, the self, is challenging. One reason that it's challenging is that you (plural) make statements that on the surface seem contradictory: often you say something like "the self is illusory", which seems to be suggesting that there is no such thing as a self, and then at other times you will make statements such as the above ("The enlightened person still has a self") i.e. that the self does exist after all. So the casual reader is left wondering "Well, so, according to QRSH, does the self exist or not?" Now I've been around long enough to understand that your answer to that question is not a black-and-white affair, and I think that I have a fair idea of what your actual position is, but perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to clarify - Dan and Kevin too, because you all seem to have different ways of explaining it.

[Dan Rowden]

No doubt.

On a semi-related note, I'm interested in learning more about Jed's concept of "human adulthood." It seems to me that we could use a lot more of that sort of thing. Conventional society is remarkably childish in many ways. Can anyone explain the details of "human adulthood" briefly or point me to some of Jed's own material on the topic?

Rebecca posted a few quotes on that subject on page 4 of this thread.

[Unidian]

OK, must have missed that. I'll have a look.

EDIT: I had a look, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

[maestro]

Question: Enlightenment is usually touted as the greatest of all achievements, as self perfection as the highest aim of humanity, the ultimate goal of every search, but you make it seem almost pointless at times.

JM: Well, I wouldn't want to give the impression that it's almost pointless. It's perfectly pointless. Awakening to your true nature is dying; it's a certainty, inevitable. You're going to get there no matter what you do , so why rush? Enjoy your life, it's free. Cosmic Consciousness and Altered States and Universal Mind are the names of rides in this vast and fascinating dualistic amusement park. So are Poverty and Disease and Despair. Enlightenment, though is not another ride. Enlightenment means leaving the park altogether, but why leave the park. In the park you can be a saint or a yogi or a billionaire or a world leader or a warlord. Be good, be evil. Happiness, misery, bliss, agony, victory, defeat, it's all here. What's the big rush. When the time comes to leave the park, you'll know and you'll go, but there is certainly nothing to be gained by it.

[rebecca702]

Maestro- don't know who wrote this but it seems to fit:

VIRTUAL REALITY

Let's pretend to be perfect
Let's pretend to be bad
Let's pretend to be low life
Let's pretend to be mad

Let's rip off our clothing
And pretend to be holy
Let's dress up like cops
And go out patrolling

Let's pretend to be starving
Let's pretend we are fed
Let's pretend to be single
Let's pretend we are wed

Let's pretend to be prostitutes, porn stars
Medieval Russian saints
Let's pretend to be scientists, housewives
People with horrible complaints

Let's pretend we're telepathic
And read each other's minds
Let's pretend we're individuals
And live like porcupines

Let's pretend we are artists:
Ann Rice or Jimmy Joyce
Let's pretend to be what you want
Live in the daydream of your choice

Pretend you're someone special
And I am special too
Prima donnas in a drama
Or fairy tale for two

With supporting cast of thousands
Playing enemies and friends
Who pretend to love and hate us
In ways we don't intend

Let's pretend we're evil devils
With stinky old cracks
Let's pretend we're good angels
With wings on our backs

Let's pretend we are gods
That run this whole show
And whatever we please
Is the way it will go

Let's play we are separate
Let's play we are One
Let's play we are dying
Pretending is fun

Let's pretend we are suffering
From a wound that won't heal
Let's forget we're pretending
Let's pretend it's all real.

[guest_of_logic]

Rebecca, I assume that you concur with the poem's sentiments, else you wouldn't have posted it. In that case perhaps you can explain something about it to me. It seems to describe pretty much everything that we typically hold to be "reality". It goes on to imply that that reality is actually a pretense: in other words unreal. In that case, what else is there that is real? And if your answer is "nothing", then isn't that poem simply effectively replacing the word "reality" with "pretense", which is a purely semantic game?: sure, we can replace the word "reality" with "pretense", but we're not achieving anything meaningful - that which it refers to is no different simply because we use a different word to refer to it.

[rebecca702]

Rebecca, I assume that you concur with the poem's sentiments, else you wouldn't have posted it.

No, I think it's interesting and thought-provoking. Doesn't mean I agree with anything.

In that case perhaps you can explain something about it to me. It seems to describe pretty much everything that we typically hold to be "reality".

I think it's a good description of what McKenna would call "consensual reality" - which is the dream of existence.

It goes on to imply that that reality is actually a pretense: in other words unreal. In that case, what else is there that is real?

Right - so if that is duality, aka consensual reality, what is Real Reality? Well, I don't know. Right now I would say what is Real is the happening of all of it. Some people call it "consciousness" but seems to me that word gets pretty muddied.

And if your answer is "nothing", then isn't that poem simply effectively replacing the word "reality" with "pretense", which is a purely semantic game?: sure, we can replace the word "reality" with "pretense", but we're not achieving anything meaningful - that which it refers to is no different simply because we use a different word to refer to it.

I would not say nothing. I would say Something is Real (and it is not a "thing" or an "it"). It is not you or I. You are not Real and I am not Real, but Something is.

Pardon my capital letters - but I would like to say there is Something that has always Been, and all these stories take place within It, sprout from It, fall back into It. Would you call that a "nothing"?

So if the poem is not really talking about real reality (durrrr) then why use that word, right? Right. Is that your argument?

I see the poem as showing us all our ideas of reality that hinge on self-definition are faulty. Reality is forever beyond reach.

[guest_of_logic]

Rebecca, I assume that you concur with the poem's sentiments, else you wouldn't have posted it.

No, I think it's interesting and thought-provoking. Doesn't mean I agree with anything.

Fair enough.

Right - so if that is duality, aka consensual reality, what is Real Reality? Well, I don't know. Right now I would say what is Real is the happening of all of it. Some people call it "consciousness" but seems to me that word gets pretty muddied.

I would not say nothing [other than consensual reality is real]. I would say Something is Real (and it is not a "thing" or an "it"). It is not you or I. You are not Real and I am not Real, but Something is.

You don't seem to be very clear on what "Real Reality" is. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Pardon my capital letters - but I would like to say there is Something that has always Been, and all these stories take place within It, sprout from It, fall back into It. Would you call that a "nothing"?

No, I would not, because that would be really dumb, and I avoid saying dumb things where I can help it. You've just called it a "Something", capitalised no less, which by definition is not a "nothing".

So if the poem is not really talking about real reality (durrrr) then why use that word, right? Right. Is that your argument?

Well, my argument actually doesn't work, because it assumes that nothing other than the "pretense", or what you call "consensual reality", exists, whereas you believe that there is a "Real Reality". If you had not denied my assumption, though, then my argument would have worked, and it boils down to this: if nothing other than the "pretense" exists, then nothing is "really" real, and the word "real" has no referent, which renders it pretty much useless, and it has effectively been replaced by "pretense" - in which case, why should we actually prefer "pretense" to "reality" after all, since there is nothing else that the word "reality" can apply to? - the "pretense" is as "real" as it gets. Get it?

I see the poem as showing us all our ideas of reality that hinge on self-definition are faulty. Reality is forever beyond reach.

I disagree with the conclusion. Reality is not beyond reach, it is everything. The only way that I can accept the characterisation of "consensual reality" as a "pretense" is if there is something more real that is not a pretense - otherwise it's just a semantic game of redefinitions.

[rebecca702]

Well, my argument actually doesn't work, because it assumes that nothing other than the "pretense", or what you call "consensual reality", exists, whereas you believe that there is a "Real Reality". [...]Reality is not beyond reach, it is everything.

What I am trying to say is that delusion is not true. Truth is true. Would you say that delusion is simply another form of true? That delusion is relatively true, and truth is ultimately true, therefore everything is true?

[guest_of_logic]

Well, my argument actually doesn't work, because it assumes that nothing other than the "pretense", or what you call "consensual reality", exists, whereas you believe that there is a "Real Reality". [...]Reality is not beyond reach, it is everything.

What I am trying to say is that delusion is not true. Truth is true.

Oh, so you're using "reality" in the sense of "truth" as opposed to "existence". I was using it in the latter sense - hence our confusion.

Would you say that delusion is simply another form of true?

No, I would not, because a delusion by definition is not true - the only truth related to a delusion is the truth that it exists.

That delusion is relatively true, and truth is ultimately true, therefore everything is true?

No. I've been tempted into similar lines of thinking in the past (I've played with the notion that one can always construct a perspective from which any statement or system of beliefs is true, and that ultimate truth is some sort of conglomerate perspective in which all perspectives are simultaneously true, and hence that everything is true), but ultimately I always return to a more rational position. Truth may have degrees, but this does not lead to the conclusion that everything is true - because, when it is unqualified, "true" means untainted by falsity whatsoever, whereas the "degrees of truth" are indeed tainted by falsity.

[1otherS]

I believe a more accurate representation of the QRS view would be to say that everyone has a chance at consciousness, but 99% refuse to take it.

OK, I have a better understanding of QRS now, but how did they conclude 99% of all people refuse to take it.

I think many more people are looking to become aware the usual suspects on this forum are giving credit to.

Even in the harshest times there will always be individuals reading and discussing art, science, literature,...All these are signs of people actually bettering their environment.

It might not be the absolute perfection many here strive for but I think the described attitude has as much value as debating pure metaphysics or religiously inspired philosophy.

[Ignius]

What if a person is alive because of their fantasies. You come along and take it away from them. They kill themselves.

Just because you didn't know that this would happen, doesn't mean that you're not responsible, right?

Perhaps we try to educate others for selfish reasons -- what do we gain from it?

[Ignius]

Don't answer that.

[Relo]

This Jed seemed to blast you right into the concrete with his 1 question theory.

Find what fits you, don't let others lay down imaginable blue prints in yourself to keep you frustrated, try to move the whole bandwagon and see if you feel any different.

[Ignius]

That's precisely what I've been doing! Thanks for the heads up - DUCK!

[Loki]

I finally got around to getting a copy of Jed's first book "Spiritual Enlightenment", and I'm almost done reading it.

Impressions

Jed McKenna is a douchebag. (this statement needs to be indexed on google)

Quinn was right, the guy repeatedly fantasizes about being adored by women, and publishes those fantasies as if they are a sign of his greatness. His first book is mostly an adolescent fantasy about being a humorous and interesting alpha male surrounded by adoring young females. It's puerile. In one scene a young women actually cries in Jed's presence because she is so overwhelmed by the fact she is in his holy presence. Later Jed sincerely consoles a distraught female by saying: "I wasn't always this interesting". Uggh. I was embarrassed reading this book.

I just want to comment in response to what David and Dan were talking about below:

I can understand what she means. The subtext of his writings is that he enjoys preying on the minds of people much younger than himself.

Well, to be fair, it could also just mean he sees more potential in young people, which is perfectly sound. But he does come across as a sort of high IQ type that always wants to dominate people with their intellect...

My impression is that Jed's intelligence is very lopsided; e.g., his intelligence has extreme peaks and valleys. He is fairly well read, and has an above average handle on language. But he sucks in the sense that he seems completely oblivious to the scientific method or scientific knowledge in general. He doesn't acknowledge science one little bit. At one point in the book, he recommends reading material, and a lot of what he recommended was new age books, like Talbot's Holographic universe, and some books that were "channeled" by mediums. Later in the book he says: "I believe indiscriminately; ghosts, bleeding statues, alien abductions, crop circles, prophecy, demonic posessions, whatever. I let all that stuff in practically unfiltered because it's more fun that way and because i have no reason not to." And then shortly after: "I have beliefs regarding personal reality and the afterlife and wherever else we can't see with the dream so that we have to use imagination and intelligence to tell us what's there."

The guy is a flake.

[Animus]

Well, I'm onto the second book now "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment" and I guess I see McKenna differently than most here do. I see an element of the Incognito in Jed's approach. In ways its like Jesus Christ claiming to be God but appearing to be a lowly bum. Here Jed is claiming to be nothing, but appearing as an egoic guru of sorts. He makes this distinction in book 2; One who is in the world but not of the world. But I'm also not reading this for a complete expose' on truth, its just entertainment for me at this point, unless something jars my thinking, but I doubt it.

[Kunga]

well i finished reading "Spiritual Incorrect Enlightenment" a few weeks ago (my first Jed reading/book)....
my impression of him was that he has read a lot on Buddhism and other eastern philosophies.....the people he attracts probebly have not been introduced to these eastern insights/thoughts...so they see him as different & on to something they've never thought about or heard of before...so they think he's very cool...i was not impressed, as i have read for many years books on eastern philosophy/buddhism....nothing he has said was new to me....and i could care less about the boring book Moby Dick and all the mind-blowing paralells to the secrets of the universe....i am sick of reading about peoples spiritual experiences ....lol

but i will read it again...as i read it very fast in 2 days...and i'll get back to you in more indepth discussion about it.