More On Holotropic Jed: L’Infant Terrible No More

Well, fuck me. I am THOROUGHLY disappointed by what Jed wrote. So of course then, being me, I need to understand why that was the case. Here goes..

First… science and terminology

To make it clear… there are no words such as ‘holotropy’, ‘jeddism’, ‘autholysis’ in relation to mind.

AUTHOLYSIS

is the breakdown

of all or part of a cell or tissue

by self-produced enzymes.

 

Jed borrowed a valid scientific term to lend credibility to his ‘new method’ of self-inquiry. He also simultaneously bashed science as a whole, stating that scientists ‘got it wrong’.

What did they get wrong? No scientist in the right mind will believe that personal existential questions can be answered through the tools available to science. One does not ask the toaster what the meaning of life is.

This is NOT what science is, and this is NOT what scientists do. Scientists are probably some of the most intelligent humans on this planet, because they grapple with problems and concepts and SOLVE them, concepts and ideas that are well beyond any average human being.

But it is OK to borrow scientific terminology, right? Own personal ramblings on the nature of this world begin to look so much more credible, right Jed? Holographic... quantumautolysis... all good, to steal what is not yours, and then bash them for doing what should be done here in this world: understand how real things work. Then one gets to use electricity. Then one gets water delivered on tap into the house. Then one doesn’t have to toil the fields like our ancestors did.

Scientists do not set out to ‘save the world’. They set out to make things that work, and will work anywhere in the universe.

You borrow from them and then have the audacity to slam.. like any normal human would, according to the jungle law. Why not get objective for once and see things as they really are>>>>>>>>> Science is not religion and does not claim exclusive knowledge. It is a practical tool that WORKS. Period.

 

HOLOTROPY

is a term invented by Stanislav Grof.

Combined the part ‘holo-‘ (Means ‘whole’)

with -tropy (means ‘a combining form in abstract nouns).

 

No shit. What does it mean? Who the hell knows. There is something vague about an ‘alternative technique’, ‘breath work’ and ‘consciousness exploration’, but they are all called ‘HOLOTROPY’. Got it?

That’s it! Again, personal ramblings of one individual would not be too bad, but the whole pseudo scientific institutions are born into existence around these.  And our Jed is right bang in the middle, while pretending to be an outsider. Huh.. neat trick.

One of the persuasive tricks known to people who possess critical thinking is about the use of science or scientifically sounding terminology to make things look more convincing and trustworthy.

Autholysis!!!

Hey, see? It sounds fucking awesome! Do away with the boring self-inquiry; move over, Niz and you other Baba lot!

Have I EVER used any of such self-invented terms on this website to convince any of you of the rightness of my persuasion? So here is one reason for disappointment: the  deeper I look into this – the more deception seems to surface. It is SO DEEP that I can’t seem to find an end to it. Every month something else come to light, either here or in my private investigation that makes me realise just how much of a setup it turned out to be.

Kenneth’s shenanigans pale in comparison.

Next… the untruths

“From my perspective, the holotropic perspective is the natural state of consciousness of the Human Adult”

Natural hey?…. Is that why the world is full of human adults, like an abundant apple tree? You meet them everywhere you go, right folks?

This is a lie. If it were natural we humans would be immersed in and transmitting this higher state of being at every turn. You would see highly actualised, creative, emotionally solvent people going about their everyday business in coherent and creative ways. Including the serial killers, who at present display internal deficiencies of a scared child.

Jed you little cheat… you yourself had to work your ass off for two straight years trying to ‘get there’. Natural? Natural my ass. Hyena’s cry is natural. Tiger’s stripes are natural. Monkey’s cunningness is natural. Crocodile’s bite is natural. The rest is a breakaway archetype, rare, spontaneous and requiring some fucking serious effort, often combined with a breakdown. There is nothing natural about it, and that is why it is rare.

Next.. figures

“Those in the juvenile state are generally around 98% hylo and 2 holo%.”

Says Jed.

Figures also add credibility, but where do these come from? I teach my students NOT to drag unconfirmed, highly speculative figures into any papers. I teach my students to QUESTION any laid out figures, to see their origins, to check out sources, to THINK where it all comes from and who is behind the information.

For Jed marketing comes first. If it sells – it is true. Because it sells. What is this 98%? Says who? I, too, was guilty of saying things like ‘99.9% of people are children’, using this as an argumentative hypothetical device, but I learnt by now that this is not acceptable, unless one has true justification. Yes, most people are still kids in their minds, but how the fuck do I know how many? How can I state with certainty?

Have I learnt? Yes. Is Jed learning? No. If anything, he seems to be regressing. But wait, it gets better.

Next… mysticism

The costume of words that Jed’s dressed up his thoughts in – is appallingly fake.

“Once you confirm subjectively, to your own satisfaction, any non-ordinary phenomenon in your life — any instance of extra-sensory awareness, any confluence of events revealing unseen agency, any combination of fortune and timing that defies random chance, any act that can only be explained as manifestation or wishcraft — then you have effectively falsified the mechanistic, materialistic, hylotropic model and verified the idealistic holotropic model for yourself.”

What the fuck is this? Where is the ‘clarity Jed’? What is this clone who talks about  ‘extra-sensory perception’ and ‘unseen agency’ and wishcraft? He has joined the loony tunes brigade of the New Age world which he was so vehemently against in the beginning… or his wife (who is into all this rubbish) has finally broken his spirit.

Well.. that was unforseen. Psychic fair

 I am disappointed by the mystical undertones, the choice of phrases that in an average person would create more mind fog instead of mind clarity. It is as if Jed is deliberately leading people into the jungle, instead of an open clearing. I wish I could believe this deliberation; it would at least involve clear awareness on Jed’s part, but this has become apparent to me:

JED MCKENNA BELIEVES HIS OWN TALES

Well bummer. Cheating is understandable, in line with the general human code. After all, Jed despises morality and ethics, at least in his books (doesn’t this free you all to be the cunts that you already are?).

But claiming the possession of perfect advanced consciousness while blighted by blind spots.. disappointing, to say the least.

Is that what happens when one grows older? Nothing else to learn, to understand, to see, to take in, to ponder? But he is not growing; he is talking about the same shite again and again, but in increasingly fantastical, self-deluded undertones and dressing it up in phantasmagoria costumes. I used to believe it was a literary device to get his adherents to question the world… but nope, I don’t think so. The more Jed writes now – the more obvious it becomes, at least to me.

No further. Jed, our L’enfant Terrible of spiritual nonconformism – has finally conformed. He also stopped evolving and is slowly reversing to childhood mind immaturity.

Go back

 

 

You people can carry on. There is no more Jed. He fucked up, and fucked up his mind. Sorry.

 

 

Red

 

 

 

112 thoughts on “More On Holotropic Jed: L’Infant Terrible No More

    1. And I must add that, to me, he is a clown from the beginning, from the very first books. (marketing from the beginning, business plan from the beginning, crappy books from the beginning.) ( Yes, I know, I’ve already said that, but I couldn’t help but say it again. 😉 I’ll try not to repeat it. 🙂 ) ( And if someone reading my comment doesn’t agree with it, I don’t care, I’m just expressing my own opinion, I’m OK with people not agreeing with me.)

      1. You are right. To call him a “clown” is an insult to real clowns.

        He’s a phoney making money out of a clever trickery.

        I have more respect (even if it’s very very little) for Deepak Chopra (or another one of those hundreds (thousands?) of spiritual moneymakers/bullshitters/writers) than for “Jed Mckenna”. At least, Chopra shows his face !

        1. As you are aware I am not at all radical when it comes to Jed’s offerings. This is because I can see his mind within them, and much of what he wrote is close to what is.

          It is when he begins to spin tales around the core understanding when I notice and bring it up. When he stops walking the straight and the narrow of Truth is when my detectors start buzzing.

          And calling Jed a clown is an insult to you, not to him. It is an insult to your humanity and reason.

  1. Id been going a few rounds at platos over some “adults” posting this nonsense because…”Here, Jed’s words were just a gateway to something so expansive I have a hard time explaining it.” Hmmm, id have a hard time explaining the existence of a unicorn too. Although i would have no need to do so. ($$$)

    But seriously, it falls on deaf ears. They CAN’T see through this thing BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO. At this point its both exhausting and laughable to even engage these types. And – for what? Vampires, dragons, specialized forms of consciousness, available exclusively to the book club?! ($$$) Adults!! SERIOUSLY!!!

    I was posed this question “If you were truly certain this is all bunk then you’d just stop and leave these crazy old dudes to their delusions. It’s certainly that simple.” And – it certainly IS that simple…AFTER you’ve invested a certain amount real, authentic, honest energy into something. Not before because the question will nag at you until you’ve fully seen and processed something for what it is.

    They aren’t capable of this BECAUSE they’re moving in the opposite direction and – thats fine. Further development doesn’t hinge on them coming along for the ride and I thought id be more disappointed than i was. The truth loses its sting after a while and the fiction section will always be available to adult childer who aren’t capable of facing reality.

    1. Perhaps, it surprises you that grown up mature men can be so caught up in the story of own ‘enlightenment, but look around.. most people of a similar socioeconomic and demographic status are at the same stage: they got into the world of ‘spirituality’ and lost touch with Reality as a result.

      Being part of an imaginary ‘exclusive’ club is dandy; masons, fraternities and archaic gentlemen clubs for the wealthy function on the same principle. What changed is an object of focus, in this case ‘Enlightened versus Unenlightened’. Everything else remained the same. Human psychology is very stable in terms of how it manifests in various human actions.

      They are not moving in the opposite direction as you said. They are simply not moving. That is why I left. Three years back I saw there was no further happening there.

      I know you do feel nostalgic and somewhat attached to the place; that’s why you keep coming back, we were close and trusting and open with one another, vulnerable even. They are not that anymore, in their cave upon the hill. You will be shot down again and again, looked down upon and treated like a lesser being. Everything that does not fit into their paradigm – will be looked upon as ‘he doesn’t get it, but WE know’.

      They don’t. And you are on your own, dear Justin. This is the price one pays for clarity: you walk among the blind forever, alone.

      1. “Everything that does not fit into their paradigm – will be looked upon as ‘he doesn’t get it, but WE know’.”

        Here.. I’m quoting myself haha. The ironic thing is the same accusation can be thrown my way, and I am sure some who read this above – thought that.

        I tried to think what makes my position here different from those self-professed enlightened guys. I came to the conclusion that it is these..

        … I don’t claim enlightenment. From the place I am in now – the mere thought of this is ridiculous. There is no ‘ineffable’, especially considering how much it has been ‘effabled’ in countless books. About nothing. About a phantom. About a dream of what does not exist.

        It reminds me of Harry Potter movies: visually spectacular and absorbing, but one never loses sense of this being a fairy tale. This is how I view the Enlightenment Gig now.

        … I don’t claim any special state. To give an analogy, if I learnt high mathematics and became ace at computer programming, or could speak a dozen foreign languages or climbed the Everest, these would have been awesome things to behold, but they would not grant me any special state.

        … I was able to retain my critical faculties. Therefore, if Jed produces something real – I will remain objective and say so. If Jed produces something substandard and fake – it will not escape me. In other words, I am able to discriminate now.

        In contrast, people on top of the enlightenment mountain embrace every odd piece of floatsom, as long as it has the label ‘enlightenment’ attached.

        Without wanting to press your buttons, J.. as an example remember this chap from Sedona. He was/is a fake, but at the time you thought he was the bees knees. You see.. this kind of thing would not happen to me now. I’ve learnt to discriminate and see the players, and perhaps, so have you at this stage.

        In short – our gang has lost the ability to think, rather than gaining it. The self brainwashing is complete.

  2. Regarding Chopra, for instance, the chap that Jed recommended:

    “West Coast years

    In June 1993, he moved to California as executive director of Sharp HealthCare’s Institute for Human Potential and Mind/Body Medicine, and head of their Center for Mind/Body Medicine, a clinic in an exclusive resort in Del Mar, California that charged $4,000 a week and included Michael Jackson’s family among its clients.[44] Chopra and Jackson first met in 1988 and remained friends for 20 years.

    Chopra left the Transcendental Meditation movement around the time he moved to California in January 1993.[47] Mahesh Yogi claimed that Chopra had competed for the Maharishi’s position as guru,[48] although Chopra rejected this.[49] According to Robert Todd Carroll, Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.[50] Cynthia Ann Humes writes that the Maharishi was concerned, and not only with regard to Chopra, that rival systems were being taught at lower prices.”

    wiki

    Friends with a paedophile.. vying with Crook Maharishi for power…. not practicing medicine, but practicing his dubious TM related teachings… There is always a human story behind every fucking book, and this human story is not as bleached as the books content tends to be.

  3. “JED MCKENNA BELIEVES HIS OWN TALES”

    Why do you think so, Tano? I can’t see how you came to that conclusion, so that makes me very interested to know how you did.

    1. “I can’t see how you came to that conclusion”

      I can’t either, K. It was a sudden insight after having read this latest piece of his. It hit me that Jed is slowly progressing to the level of the irrational, or rather, is holding both rational and irrational in the same plane right now, but eventually what is likely to happen.. he will descend to the irrational all together.

      Why? Some people tend to go that way with age. To illustrate… some people who never believed in god in their entire adult lives – suddenly admit the possibility when the middle age is coming to a close. Why? they are closer to the grave now, and it frightens them.

      All very humane.

      1. “a sudden insight”

        That explains the ALL CAPS!! 😉

        Damn, interesting, especially considering I faintly remember him writing a few times about the finality of his views. I’d have never imagined it would be possible to then revert back. But we’re all still human after all, and the example you gave is really clear as well.

        1. “the finality of his views”

          I have always maintained (here and elsewhere) the same. And the finality is still there, but the views and perspectives always shift.

          Jed seems to move in the direction of mysticism, I noted that over a year ago in one of the article. This latest seems to confirm. I was of the impression at first it was a calculated move on his part, very deliberate, but from this latest offering it seems to me he really believes the special universe where all goes according to plan and without any effort – exists.

          Perhaps, all those profits made it so. There is clearly a correlation between the amount of financial freedom and a sense of entitlement to happiness and ‘flow’ one experiences.

          If you don’t have to struggle daily then the universe WILL look friendly and a happy place to inhabit. And I actually have met some people who were extremely lucky in that way. One told me so themselves: they never had any hardship. They were one of the most content and happy people.

          1. “If you don’t have to struggle daily then the universe WILL look friendly and a happy place to inhabit.” doesn’t that just mean that the universe IS friendly and happy place to inhabit for those people?
            My life after my early years have been pretty low on struggle and even some hardships here and there have been usually out of my control so I’ve accepted them wholeheartedly so to me, universe is pretty neat, although I don’t see a real distinction between universe and the one who’s experiencing it.
            I would believe your experiential corner of the universe is also filled with flows and struggles, and that leads to a conclusion that there’s no unchanging characteristics of the universe.
            Universe is all kinds of things for all kinds of people, all experiences of it are valid in their own respected ways.

          2. doesn’t that just mean that the universe IS friendly and happy place to inhabit for those people?”

            For those people, yes. But doesn’t this also mean that a sense of happiness and all these universes are highly subjective places to inhabit and depend on personal circumstance? For Jed who lives in a secluded and secure place in the United States and whose book writing has provided a steady substantial income – the universe is a puppy.

            For those refugees at the Turkush border… do you truly believe the universe is a playful puppy?

            So then… is ‘playful universe’ an objective phenomenon universal to ALL.. or is this a highly subjective happenstance?

            And if it is highly subjective.. why does Jed wax lyrical about this happy universe as if it was universal law?

            Whose place would you choose to inhabit IF it was the only choice… that of Jed or of a Kurdish refugee?

            The sense of entitlement from a privilleged American chap who may have had very little by way of material/emotional lack is pulpable in the books (well, he is from a middle class, well to do background).

            Finally… you can say ‘who cares’. I’d be disappointed if you said this. In one fell swoop you would dismiss most of this planet’s population.

            Please don’t.

          3. I don’t ser a real dustinction between universe and the one who’s experiencing it”

            Well… I do. I have no black holes for one. Or background radiation.

            You see… why do you observe everything exclusively from your own limited experience? How about the mind expansiveness that allows space for the rest? And you said it “Universe is all kinds of things fir all kinds of people,”.

            Yes, correct. Then Jed writes a book or two in which those experiences that he personally never had in terms of life’s hardships – are reduced to the state of personal neurosis and inability to ‘align with the universe’.

            THEN it is pronounced a universally correct model, or at least Jed is very sure of his models of universe.

            Do you agree with his models of perfection?

          4. “Do you agree with his models of perfection?”

            perfect

            adjective
            /ˈpəːfɪkt/

            1.
            having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

            2.
            absolute; complete (used for emphasis).

            I’m having a pretty nasty hangover as I’m typing this and even though it would be physically more pleasant to not have this constantly pulsing headache, shit taste in my mouth and an upset stomach I don’t really have a problem with it, I know why I’m having the hangover and I know I can’t really do much about it so the unpleasant sensations doesn’t bother that much, on the other hand If I would dwell on it and create stories about it to ruminate, it would feel to be much more nasty than it really is in it’s purest, experiential form of a slightly upset stomach and a headache. You could say It is perfect hangover even though my personal preference would be not having it but my options right at this moment are nonexistential so I just patiently wait for it to pass.
            To my understanding Jed is saying that the universe is perfect in its manifestations because there is no alternative form for things to be, our own believes, stories, dissatisfactions and struggles are a part of the whole and it makes them perfect too.
            So the universe is perfect because the universe is absolute; complete in itself.

            Obviously this doesn’t chance the fact that lots of people are struggling to stay alive and there’s unimaginable suffering going on so the universe is not just a playful puppy but sometimes a bloody dragon for many poor chaps out there but I still wouldn’t make a generalization out of it like “life is suffering” or such.

            ““I don’t ser a real dustinction between universe and the one who’s experiencing it”

            Well… I do.”

            Okay then; what was the universe like before any sentient beings?

          5. “I’m having a pretty nasty hangover as I’m typing this”

            Why would you subject yourself to this?

            ‘No alternative’ is usually the opposite of perfection. Why don’t we call a spade the spade? No alternative sucks. The world is both shite and beauty. Pain and pleasure coexist. Giving it all one blanket epithet ‘perfect’ is misleading. Just like the real blanket, this one word covers the details, hides them from view

            The universe is perfect. See? The denial of the detail is complete.

            I dare you walk up to that refugee and tell him “Hey mate, universe is perfect man… what’s the problem?”

            Saying this not only minimises and even dismisses the suffering of those who DO suffer, but it also ignores the fact that perfection does not exist in the real world.

            Perfection is something that cannot in any way be improved. Well, there is no single form or phenomena that is absolutely perfect.

            So let’s not misuse the word. Its meaning is only applicable in truth to imaginary things. It is the expression of our internal wish, not a reflection of Reality.

          6. what was the universe like before any sentient beings?”

            I don’t know. I wasn’t there.

            Physicists can speculate and build models, since they are a tad more qualified, being familiar with laws of physics. But they weren’t there either, and speculation or a model are not facts.

            No one knows for sure. We are too small and finite, both in terms of size and in terms of a lifespan.

          7. “So the universe is perfect because the universe is absolute; complete in itself.”

            This is a pointless expression, and it’s neither verifiable nor falsifiable. The only reason I see to hold that belief is because it might offer some relief from one’s own suffering.

            “Okay then; what was the universe like before any sentient beings?”

            If a tree falls in a forest, but there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Something existing is not contingent on there also being someone to experience it. By that logic all the stars and planets that we have not yet mapped out don’t exist.

          8. “Something existing is not contingent on there also being someone to experience it.” Can you explain your definition of existence?

          9. Is the universe perfect? What was the universe like before any sentient beings? or as Kutkatt sharply noticed it to be rephrasing of the koan; If a tree falls in a forest, but there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?

            It sneakily whispers a follow up question: to whom?

            We can speculate what kind of planetary action there would be, maybe draw some illustrations about it or what kind of a sound the tree would make but that doesn’t make those speculations any more real than daydreams, they only exist as half-models but not in Reality. Why not? Because these models presume someone or something there to observe it happening, almost always from the human point of view.
            We are trying to imagine something that would be like a dreamless deep sleep, no one to have an experience of time, or space or sounds. To us who are lucky to exist, spacetime animates and sounds enrich our reality.

            Existence is existence, not a mere speculation of might be existence.

            Tano, I had to borrow your words, ALL BEGINS and ENDS – with YOU.

            It is easy for people to understand that the UNIVERSE creates us, but it seems to be utterly dismissed that at the same time WE create the universe, we ARE the universe, you, me, that cat over there and everything else we have ever laid our senses onto….

            “Physicists can speculate and build models, since they are a tad more qualified, being familiar with laws of physics. But they weren’t there either, and speculation or a model are not facts.”
            Ditto.

            Finally, I never said I would use the word perfect for the reality myself. I see that in the absolute sense, everything goes as it goes, but I agree that the word perfect is not sufficient to reflect that. Still I am not too worried about the world, I would love to see less suffering and creed but what can you do beside your own best efforts. Our time is limited, we do what we do and then we die.

          10. “t is easy for people to understand that the UNIVERSE creates us, but it seems to be utterly dismissed that at the same time WE create the universe”

            I prefer to call this not universe, but one’s personal reality; this way it does not get mixed with the meaning of the physical universe. And when it DOES get mixed up.. all sorts of false understandings and beliefs rise, because people take things literally.

            Yes, there are two sides to the coin of Reality: objective versus subjective. I prefer to keep both in mind and not harp on about either ‘all is objective’ or ‘all is subjective’.

            See this usual conundrum.. objective versus subjective.. the absolute versus the relative… good versus evil…

            …. the so called Oneness is not about some out of body temporary states where one is drunk on suddenly feeling ‘one with all’; the human physiology has many tricks up its sleeve.

            Oneness is simply seeing this duality of the word as One World, as is, as we know it and perceive it every day.

            I suspect you know this, SJ.

          11. “If a tree falls in a forest, but there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?
            It sneakily whispers a follow up question: to whom?”

            It does.
            To no one. There is no one to perceive it. But the air particles move, and hence, the sound waves are produced. I wrote about this before.
            Kutkatt is correct.

          12. @Tano
            “I wrote about this before.” (tree falling in the forest)

            Yes, that’s where I read it, and it made a lot of sense to me. That’s what I had to think of when SJ posed his question.

            I feel that it is dishonest that I did not mention reading it on your website. I thought it not very relevant at the time I made the comment, but now I’m thinking I should have said it anyway. It was on your website I read it after all, and where I brought it up.

            But I’d like to know how you view it, your moral compass has always seemed very good.

            I’m aware that this is a very minor thingy, but I wanted to mention it, anyway.

          13. ” feel that it is dishonest that I did not mention reading it on your website.”

            Not at all. The koan is not mine, and the resolution of it (yes, it does make a sound) is not specific to me. While again, as with many things, I got it on my own, but I’ve also seen a few other people drawing the same conclusion. Those were highly aware people.

            No sweat.

        2. “..”your” definition of existence”. The way you phrased it implies that I could have my own definition of a word or term, and that the dictionary has no real value, since I can make up my own meanings. (I know, I know.. I’m nitpicking, but it is a valid point, though in my opinion)
          I’ll rephrase the question to: What do you think it means for something to exist?

          I haven’t given that much thought before. This is the answer I came to after some googling: ‘consisting of matter or energy’.

          1. Indeed, the root of almost all misunderstandings lie in our differing definitions.

            “I haven’t given that much thought before. This is the answer I came to after some googling: ‘consisting of matter or energy’.”

            Okay fair enough, so the next question then is; HOW do you know something exists, what is the process that leads YOU to know something exists?

          2. Something either exists or it doesn’t. And I can become aware of it’s existence by becoming conscious of it.

            I’d like to know how you would answer the question you posed earlier.
            “Okay then; what was the universe like before any sentient beings?”

            And why do you hold the belief of everything is perfect? I can understand the rationale behind it, but to me that is just mental masturbation and has no basis in reality at all.

          3. “And why do you hold the belief of everything is perfect?”

            Seagull Jones may still reply, but you said it somewhere yourself: it gives people a degree of comfort, like a lullaby mantra “Everything is perfect, nothing goes wrong, or even better – there is no wrong or right. Everything is perfect. My life is perfect. I am well”.

            I may prefer to hear “Nothing is perfect in my life and around me, but I love being alive and intend to live life to its natural end. Bring it on!”

          4. “I may prefer to hear “Nothing is perfect in my life and around me, but I love being alive and intend to live life to its natural end. Bring it on!””

            Loving life is fucking awesome indeed, sometimes even in the midst of shitty life situation, I find myself enjoying even the sad feelings and such, life is so vibrantly rich with its infinite shades. What a ride.

          5. @Seagull Jones

            Your writing has this sort of fake sense of wonder about the world. Like you’re floating a few feet of the ground. You don’t seem to be grounded in reality at all, more like you’re in a bubble that you made yourself. And it’s kind of crazy how you manage to incorporate what Tano is saying (“Ditto”, and in other places) and use that to strengthen your position.

            @Tano

            I really like how direct you are in your communication. For example you answered the question by Seagull Jones head-on.
            “what was the universe like before any sentient beings?”
            The way I answered steered the conversation in a less relevant direction, even though I tried to be direct. I learnt from that now though by watching you.
            I’m wondering though why I do that, why people in general do that. (steering a conversation in a different direction) This time I wasn’t aware of doing so,

          6. @Seagull Jones
            I feel the need to say that what I wrote is just a gut-feeling I got when reading your comment. No bad intentions, just curious what you think.

          7. @kutkatt

            First of all, I like your straightforward approach and I take no offence from what you wrote, no worries man, secondly my message was directed mainly towards Tano so my intention was to provoke a nice rebuttal from her even though I stand behind the point I tried to get across. I’m slightly sleep deprived so my communication is probably not the best and If I would be the one looking my post from the outside in, I would probably have the same kind of gut feelings as you.

            “You don’t seem to be grounded in reality at all, more like you’re in a bubble that you made yourself.”

            I can’t really convince my groundedness (is that even a word?) to you and it usually depends on the situation how “grounded” I’ll present myself.
            I would argue that we all somewhat live in our own bubbles, how much our bubble reflects the conventions of our surrounding culture is another thing.

            “Your writing has this sort of fake sense of wonder about the world.”

            Life is a mystery to me, I like to ponder scientific and philosophic stuff from time to time but I know that my limited mind can’t comprehend all the moving parts of any phenomenon, life is too interconnected to have it chopped into nice little thought pieces, but we still try.
            I enjoy living and I’m about 90% of the time content with my life’s content.

            Keep up the sincerity, it suits you.

  4. “And our Jed is right bang in the middle, while pretending to be an outsider. Huh.. neat trick.”

    Wow, yeah, he is very good at that. Since I am now studying at university I have a growing respect for scientists. Some of the most intelligent people, so to then make it seem to your readers that they are now above science, and above those intelligent people, feels pretty good. Fuck man, that’s probably part of the reason why those books hooked me like they did.

    1. No, I don’t think the books hooked you because they mocked science.

      The books are charged with emotion, and humans respond best to emotion. His was an unspoken emotional promise of the possibility to overcome emotion, and with it – all the troubles we experience in life. To become immune and above it all.

      Just like Jed portrayed this conquest of emotion in himself. It is a powerful promise.

      There is nothing more to it.

    2. You can wod it so clearly. ‘Immune’, safe, free from all these terrible feelings. Now thinking back, I started sort of dissociating from my feelings in that period, not in small part because of Ken as well. ‘It’s all a dream.’ which he kept repeating on the IG forum.

      1. “started sort of dissociating from my feelings”

        I had a similar period. Then I realised that ability to feel things (not emote, these are qualitatively different) is given for a reason. It is a human’s first alert system that tells us something is not right.

        Destroying this system is extremely damaging in the long run.

  5. I’ve just checked to be sure : He uses the “autolisys” bullshit in the very first book. So, once again, he’s talking bullshit from the start, to me he has not “reversed”, it’s the same spiritual crap from the start, he is the same “Jed” from the first book.

    I’ve read his interview published at the end of the first e-book version of “Spiritual enlightenment the damnest thing” (“bonus content” as it says, clever marketing, money money money) here : https://fr.slideshare.net/Amare_Abebe/spiritual-enlightenmentthedamnedestthingjedmc-kenna

    He’s selling that bullshit idea of “enlighenment” from the beginning. He is doing as if he’s not selling it, with that “the search is over” advertising catchline, but he is. What he is DOING is selling that crap/trap that people fall for ! Clever trickery for selling books.

    Here are some excerpts of that itw :

    “The teaching is sacred the way the log is sacred. The log is the savior, saving us from sinking into the cold black depths” LOL Yes, yes, Jed, your crappy book is sacred, of course. As far as I’m concerned, my advice to everyone would be : just sink into the “cold black depth”, and see for yourself what’s there, you could be surprised. And most importantly : never give up on life !

    Then he quotes a book from 30 years old (at the time) Mariana Caplan ( who’s actual website is titled “Real spirituality”, where she sells A LOT of spiritual crap. (a better website title would be : “Real Bullshituality”)) My guess is that Jed knows (or knew her) personally.

    Other extract : ” Question : You describe a process of awakening that generally takes two years, plus another ten to integrate,…” WHAT THE F. ??? That’s SO fucked-up. Seriously ? And people really believe that crap ? To me, EVERY path is UNIQUE. “it will take x years for that and x years for this” is hogwash. By the way, life is a NON-STOP process, you ALWAYS learn, ALWAYS evolve, there are no “arrival points” or destinations.

    Other extract : “I want to hold myself up as an awakened being and say “Look this is it. This is what it’s really like”” LOLLLL This is soooo funny, it’s speak for itself. I personally would be ashamed to say something like that…lol

    “My name is Cédric, and I hold myself out as an awakened being and my book is sacred” lol (the sad part is that some people would believe me !) (If I was a phoney like Jed, I could make a lot of money in that “spiritual marketplace/circus”, so much people want that “enlightenment” crappy idea… )

    1. “He uses the “autolisys” bullshit in the very first book.”

      Do you think the idea of autholysis is bullshit, or is it just that you have a big dislike of the term itself? I think the idea behind autholysis, taking a critical look at yourself and the world, is good.

      “Yes, yes, Jed, your crappy book…”

      Really, you think his book is crappy? I think that the books by him that I’ve read are really well written, are funny at times, and they hooked me like no other book had done before. The actual content of the book is another story.

      Seems to me like you’re are of lashing out at him, maybe from a sense of feeling betrayed at having believed some of it. (I don’t know if you have read them extensively, though, just a guess) In any case, the guy still gets you up in arms, and you seem to enjoy hating on him.

      This might seem judgy on my end, making these assumptions. But that’s just my thoughts from reading your comment, and I’m curious to see what you think of them, my thoughts. Maybe it’s that I am trying to work on my sense of intuition by really looking into the meaning and feelings behind someone’s words, and checking to see how accurate my intuition is.

      1. “the guy still gets you up in arms”

        That’s not really the right phrase. More accurate what I mean is ‘he stirs up a lot of emotion in you’

      2. Hello kutkatt, I enjoy discussions with someone that is open-minded, and you seem like that, so feel free to share your remarks or questions with me (even though that doesn’t mean that I will necessarily answer every one of them.)

        “Do you think the idea of autholysis is bullshit, or is it just that you have a big dislike of the term itself? I think the idea behind autholysis, taking a critical look at yourself and the world, is good.”

        I agree with you, the idea of taking a critical look at oneself and the world is a good thing. It’s a sane and mature thing to do. But calling that “autholysis” is misleading and crappy. With that word he’s communicating the idea that it’s a “special thing” “leading” in a way or another to “enlightenment”. That’s where I call bullshit. No need for that word “autolysis” that, as Tano puts it, gives a “scientific aura” to that simple idea of “looking carefully and honestly at oneself”.

        “Really, you think his book is crappy?”

        Yes, I really mean it. I only read the first half of the first book and I couldn’t continue. I realized that it was all fiction and that the author was not an “original thinker” there are tons of quotations in that books as if he need to lean on others, sometimes quotations from “spiritual masters/teachers/writers” that I don’t like, that are frauds to me. Like Adi Da aka Bubba Free John aka Da Free John aka etc. or Ramesh Balsekar. But even if those two were not quoted. I don’t like how he throws all those names. An original thinker do not need what others have written beforme him, he stands on his own two feet.

        So to be clear, if it was written “NOVEL” on the cover. I would have no critics to make to J. Mckenna. He is of course free to write books and sell them. But here, what I don’t like is that he’s selling the fallacious idea of “enlightenment” or “being awake”. That’s bullshit, and he does it without showing his face. That’s why I’m critical. There are a lot of other people like him in the world, but at least they are not hiding.

        But there is no hate. I don’t hate him. 🙂 I don’t wish him anything bad. I just don’t like his business. I don’t really care about his books. They are just misleading books as are thousands other misleading books in the world, nothing less nothing more. I agree with you to say that he has some writing talents. (If it was not the case, I wouldn’t have read half of the first book 😉 ).

        I don’t like the trickery, the way he makes money by pretending “saying the truth”. He is NOT saying the truth. He is a business man, a phony business man.

        If he was clear and frank by saying : “what I write is fiction to make money out of it”, ok, I would have nothing to say against that. But he is playing the “awakened guy” with who “the search is over”. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. 🙂

        By the way, I don’t feel betrayed, I’ve not given him one penny or one cent, I read the first book for free online.

        1. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your comment.

          “I read the first book for free online.”

          Long live torrents. I did buy one or two books, so maybe he had a nice meal at a restaurant on me.

          I also payed the ridiculous amount of money to Kenneth for the Navigator Series. I didn’t pay him with the idea of buying enlightenment, my thinking at the time was “I don’t care about the money, I just want to do whatever it takes to move forward.”
          But to pay someone who I didn’t know at all, who I just talked to on an anonymous internet forum such a large sum of money for essentially nothing, via Western Union which is a pretty sketchy method of payment… Yea I had completely lost touch with reality at the time. I wanted to move forward so bad, that I lost nearly all critical thinking, and since he claimed to help I just went with it.

          1. “I didn’t pay him with the idea of buying enlightenment”

            I probably did, although it was buried a little deeper. I think my reasoning went like this: the Nav Series will help me to become a Human Adult (capital letters on purpose, since at that time it seemed like something special, and Kenneth made it seem that way as well) -> once I am a Human Adult I will probably enjoy life a lot more, and the chance of becoming Enlightened will be a lot higher.

            This was mostly subconscious, though.

          2. I want to share with you a facebook page I enjoy reading. It’s called “Advaïtaholics Anonymous”. The author is Shiv Sengupta a indian-born canadian living in Japan, he writes a lot of sensible stuff. And it’s all FREE ! 😉 He’s not a guru, not a teacher, not selling anything, he’s just sharing his interesting musings. And to me, he writes much better than “Jed Mckenna”. I comment his posts regularly. Here it is :

            https://www.facebook.com/Advaitaholics-Anonymous-471671813352841/

            Enjoy.

          3. I read some quotes online. Not on Facebook, I have no account and so no access to Facebook.

            Much of what he says I corroborate. However, he has a substantial presence online in various forms, including Youtube, Facebook, Medium, own website and other outlets.

            He also called himself a teacher.

            That makes me suspect that perhaps he is not as benevolent as it seems.

            But that may be just my suspicious mistrustful (when it comes to ‘enlightened’ claims) self hah.

          4. “to pay someone who I didn’t know at all, who I just talked to on an anonymous internet forum such a large sum of money for essentially nothing, via Western Union which is a pretty sketchy method of payment… Yea I had completely lost touch with reality at the time”

            It amazes me that in any other life situation people would use some form of discernment and ask themselves whom they are giving the cash to.

            But when it comes to ‘enlightenment’ and any New Age topics, people seem to lose all ability to remain rational.

            This is because most encounter the subject in the most vulnerable mental state when their life is falling to pieces for whatever reason. This vulnerability is what our ‘teachers’ prey on. It will always work.

            You are not alone, K, in having fallen prey to the trick. I hope you have learnt from that.

          5. “So.. what’s life like after the Navs?”

            It’s a few years back now. A lot has changed, though not thanks to the Nav Series.

            “This is because most encounter the subject in the most vulnerable mental state… ”

            That was very true for me at that time.

          6. “Not on Facebook, I have no account and so no access to Facebook.”

            I think you still have access (maybe you forgot your account and/or password ?). The proof is that we are still Facebook friends ! 😉 One of my Fb friends (and I have not many) is “Tano EnlightenmentMyth”, and it’s not some fake account, it’s you. I remember you were using that name when you were commenting and posting on facebook some years ago. (That’s when I sent you a friend request that you accepted)

            If you had deleted your account, we would not be fb friends anymore. Maybe you forgot to delete it ? There is even still a fb post dated 25 feb. 2018 on your page concerning “Chi-Ting Apocalypse”. And it says we have a friend in common.

            “He also called himself a teacher.”

            Yes, that’s right, some years ago he thought about becoming a “meditation teacher” (I think he even gave some classes in Japan), but he realised that it would be the wrong move for him to make. In any case, currently he clearly says he’s not a teacher, just a “writer/thinker/philosopher” sharing his thoughts for free. And he writes damn good ! He clearly hates all the “spiritual business” and I totally agree with him on that.

            But of course, that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a “critical eye” when I read him. Currently I agree almost all the time with what he writes (and he writes A LOT ! ), but some months ago we had our little disagreements. And he didn’t like how I told him one of my disagreements. So he banned me from commenting, and then lift the ban (it reminds me a story 😉 ). All of that to say that I’m not a boot or asslicker. (not with him, not with you, not with anyone else )

            And of course he doesn’t call himself “enlightened” and all that nonsense.

          7. I think I suspended that account and never used it since, so it is as if I have none.

            I’m not a boot or asslicker”

            You know what one valid asset of a rational mind is? An ability to hold things in balance. You don’t and tend to go ape-shit ‘black-and-white-nothing-in-between’ on people.

            I suggest as a way of keeping that balance… you may wish to learn how to absolutely lick ass. Imagine your life depends on it. Suck it, slurp on it, clean it thoroughly with your tongue…

            Have you seen the movie ‘The Karate Kid’ (the 2010 version)? Jackie Chan teaches the kid by way of making him place his jacket in the right place, days on end.

            He was teaching the kid humility.

            Humility is not synonymous with the lack of backbone in a person either. Perhaps, you could consider the distinction and how this applies to you.

          8. ” You don’t and tend to go ape-shit ‘black-and-white-nothing-in-between’ on people.”

            I agree that it might look a bit like that from “the outside”. But in fact I’m playing a bit with that. “Inside” I’m quite calm even tough I have some clear opinions.

            Regarding “ass-linking”, don’t you remember how I was “liking your ass” some years ago when I discovered your webside and your “Jed’s” investigations. 😉 I can be quite good at ass-licking ! lol

        1. That’s why I say that are “crappy”. It’s because they are not truthful, and because they are design to deceit ! When you pretend to “say the truth” then it must be 100% truthful and not designed to make money, otherwise I call your books “crappy”, even if they are well written.

          Jed Mckenna has some writing talents, (but not even that much, there are so many other writers and novelists that have so much more talent than he has), but he used and uses his talents to design a money-making machine while pretending talking about “the truth”.

          Of course he had/has some insights on “life”, but not even that much. But when you have some insights, you have RESPONSABILITIES that come with it (to paraphrase Spiderman) ! Otherwise you’re just a fraud. And in that “spirituality world and marketplace” there are a whole lot of frauds and phoneys ! They are just there to play their role and make money out of it. And Jed Mckenna is one them.

          (That is only what I think, I accept and respect that you don’t agree with me Tano.)

        2. “don’t you remember how I was “liking your ass” some years ago when I discovered your webside and your “Jed’s” investigations.”

          I don’t recall. You’ve always been an ‘in your face’ type of communicator.

    2. “The teaching is sacred the way the log is sacred”

      Well, he is actually mocking the idea of ‘teaching’ here.

      However… he then writes about his teaching ashram, and then produces seven more books.

      And yes, to say ‘I am enlightened’ or ‘I hold myself as an enlightened being’ is not genuine AFTER having mocked the idea of teaching and enlightenment.

      In other words, Jed mocks.. and then does exactly the same as those he is mocking. What’s the word I’m looking for here?……..

      1. Agree 100%. He put so much thought into the design of the first book so that it would be as appealing as possible. (quoted all those great names, put emotions in his stories so that the reader could relate to those characters, put a lot of marketing work, etc. etc. ). The book was NOT designed to “tell the truth”, but TO SELL. That’s why I’m so critical. The proof is that he keeps releasing new books while pretending that “everything is in the first one”. But to me, there is almost nothing in that “first book”, ok some insights, some clever dialogues, some funny scenes, but that’s it, and that “jed mckenna” character is NOT even real, it’s all a novel without saying it’s a novel, and the rest is not even his own words (all those Walt Whitman quotations for instance, quite handy to fill in the pages), and on top of that bad cake that “autolysis” rotten cherry.

        So when you say that they are “good books” we disagree totally on that, Tano. But once again, I respect your opinion.

        By the way I think I expressed mine clearly. I will elaborate on that again only if you (or someone else) want me to.

        Personnaly, I’m done with “Jed McKenna” 🙂

        1. You call the books crappy because of a few things about it that you don’t like, and even though you acknowledge they are well written. That’s the black and white thinking Tano mentioned.

        2. So when you say that they are “good books” we disagree totally on that, Tano.”

          They are good because 20 years on people talk about them as passionately as when they first came out.

          They trigger a large number of those who came across the books; they are mostly people who never considered the possibility that every existential question can be answered by themselves.

          Unfortunately, these people take the books seriously, as if they convey the absolute truth, and will indiscriminately defend anything Jed McKenna produces.

          They will also deny own internal dependence on his writing and are awaiting every new release with trepidation.

          It can be argued that it says more about the kind of people who follow Jed rather than Jed himself. But he is well aware of the mpact he has on his most impressionable immature audience; it’s enough to read his latest (I didn’t apart from extracts) to see he has little respect for their slave-like ways.

          In short.. his books are good. And they create a cult-like mentality which Jed covertly encourages, by more books, by now new newsletters, by now the popup on the website offering to subscribe, by volunteer translators wuth a profit sharing scheme, by the taster of free content, by keeping Kenneth’s business thriving.

          And by remaining anonymous.

          If one writes books – books need to be sold.
          If books need to be sold – they have to find their target audience.

          If they need to find the target audience – the books need to appeal to that audience.

          If they need to appeal to the audience – they cannot be too scary.

          If the books cannot be too scary – the truth will be whitewashed.

          The problem is simply this… the books are targeting a very immature chunk of
          population. I am not talking about the physical age, but mental age, an ability for independent thinking. It is mostly absent, especially in those who consumed all of Jed’s books.

          Pfft… the first book was more than enough. The rest were written for and are addressed to children.

          1. I mostly agree with you, Tano. I think our disagrements are marginal, they are not fundamental. But even if they are marginal, they are worth be mentionned.

            Here for instance you say :

            “If one writes books – books need to be sold.”

            I don’t agree with that. Especially in this day and age, where all kind of books publishing and distribution methods are avaible thanks to the internet, Amazon, e-books, etc. One can write a book and propose it to the public while investing almost no money, even if they are “real paper books”, they are printed on demand : you order a book online, the book is printed just for you and you receive it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_on_demand ) No waste of paper or money.

            So “If one writes books – books need to be sold.” is just not true.

            But if one wants to make a living out of “writing books” that is another story. “If one writes books that he wants people to buy – books need to be sold”, that become true of course.

            Jed Mckenna wanted to SELL them, a lot of them, from the start. He didn’t write the book he wanted to write, he wrote the book he thought people would want to buy. All the process was well thought out. And it seems he succeeded. I don’t think he was sure it would work. But he wrote the book that people would want to read and buy. “The search is over”…. you just have to purchase my book….

            It’s because he is a money-oriented phoney himself, that it doesn’t bother him (or just a little) that Kenneth makes also money out of “jed mckenna”.

            One can write books just for the pleasure of writing or for the desire to share one stories or thoughts (if it’s an essay). A lot of people share their books or their writings for free thanks to the internet (like you do for instance here with this blog). It’s clearly not Mckenna’s case. With him it’s all money-oriented, even the little e-books he publishes for free they are there to make people buy his books (33 percent off if you buy three).

            If you think this discussion is over, just let me know, I don’t want to bother you, I enjoy those discussions.

          2. “So “If one writes books – books need to be sold.” is just not true.”

            I don’t know of any writer who wrote a book WITH A VIEW OF NEVER SELLING IT.

            So I have no idea what you are protesting against.

          3. “So I have no idea what you are protesting against.”

            I’m not “protesting”, “protesting” is a strong word. I’m just saying that there are people that write without the intention of making money out of their writings. They have other motivations than making money. That’s all I’m saying.

          4. I was questioning the first premisse of your reasoning because I don’t agree with your reasoning on the whole, conclusion included.

            To be clear about what I’m talking about, here is what you wrote :

            “If books need to be sold – they have to find their target audience.
            If they need to find the target audience – the books need to appeal to that audience.
            If they need to appeal to the audience – they cannot be too scary.
            If the books cannot be too scary – the truth will be whitewashed.”

            I still don’t agree with first premisse which is “If one writes books – books need to be sold.” Because to me, a “book” can for instance be an “e-book” made available for free online for readers to read it. (Some people just write to be read, not to make money with what they write.)

            But having a verbal dispute with you about what “a book” is or isn’t or what “writing a book” is or isn’t, is not very insteresting. So let’s put that first premisse aside. (That been said, ‘verbal disputes’ can be interesting and important sometimes, I just read an article written by philosopher David Chalmers on Verbal disputes. And, even tough it’s a quite long and technical article, I found it very interesting. For those who want to check it out : http://consc.net/papers/verbal.pdf )

            So in short, I don’t agree with your reasoning on the whole, and I will give a simple example to show that for me your reasoning is not correct : There are some genuine, contientious and scrupulous philosophers that work on “truth”. Their whole life is dedicated to think and to write about truth. When one of them publishes a book, he is not thinking “the audience must like it” or “I must whitewash the truth so that my book is not to scary so that it appeal to the audience I have targeted.” A scrutunous philosopher that published a book will not think in terms of “targeting an audience” or “making money” or “having the biggest audience possible” or “pleasing his readers”. He just writes what he thinks is true without caring about how it will be received. Of course there are “mediatic philosophers” that want money and fame, I’m not talking about those. I have an example of a serious philosopher that just popped into my mind : Arthur Schopenhauer, I think that, if I remember right, he just sold dozens of copies of his famous book titled “The World as Will and Representation” during most of his life. (his book became famous just at the end of his life, a few years before he died.)

            But once again, I think that we globally agree : Jed McKenna is not a serious philosopher, his plan, from the start, was and still is to make money with those books.

          5. I don’t agree with your reasoning”

            It is not reasoning, but a reality check. Let’s see.

            “e-book” made available for free online for readers to read it”

            E-books are usually a condensed version of some long standing online content. They are not books in their true sense. For instance, I could turn the story of figuring out Kenneth McMordie identity into an e-book.

            Usually such acts indicate that the e-book author has an intention to then turn their e-book into a proper book (by ‘proper’ I mean ‘improve and expand on it, then market and sell it”).

            Not all end up doing so, for various reasons, but the hope is always there. You are naive if you think otherwise.

            Proper books with excellent content require A LOT of invested time and effort. Writing them also consumes some material resources. It would be absolutely headless to invest such effort into writing a book WITHOUT hoping it would sell.

            Further, you cannot compare books for general audience to academic writing as you have done. Academic writing advances a broad academic career, which means more lucrative academic posts and better renumeration.

            Aademic books are writtern with an academic audience in mind. They also sell, and for some serious money (often upwards of a hundred bucks), because the subject is professional and requires serious reliable research and fact checking(=time investment), and because the potential pool of buyers is small.

            Haha, Schopenhauer, the original nihilist… He was a philosophical, intellectual and physical vagabond. Was crap at marketing and could not be bothered to make a serious effort to do so. That is the only reason.

      2. A hypocrite? Definition: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
        a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

  6. What the fuck are u talking about?
    That’s not only what I think reading ur posts, but also Jed McKennas new books and articles.

    Of course Jed is enlightened. Me too. There’s not the smallest doubt. It’s just to answer the induction problem (that’s how it’s called in german, idk if it’s translated correctly; it’s basically asking how knowledge started to grow/where the beginning of knowledge is). And if u take this problem serious u will see that there never was any problem, because there never occurred an induction. There never was any knowledge.

    Evendow I can intellectually follow Jeds Human Adulthood stuff, I think what he’s doing is only metaphisical onanism.
    Even he himself is sure that he could reduce his “teachings” to one or two pages. So what the heck is this guy doing. I admire his ability of doing doublethink.

    I really loved Jed McKenna in the beginning. For me philosophy was never “love for truth” but “hate the lie/illusion”. But what he doesn’t tell u, is that as soon u know the truth u want back the lie.
    And all his Human Adulthood stuff is also not truth (not enlightenment), so he’s just bullshitting everyone and always contradicts himself (u know all this in and out of the game).
    So thanks Jed for fucking me up, I really enjoyed it, but now I am done and I don’t know what to do with it and that’s kinda shitty.

    I think Jed left the amusement park and now he’s envious and wants to be the spoilsports.

    1. “What the fuck are u talking about?
      That’s not only what I think reading ur posts, but also Jed McKennas new books and articles.”

      Why? Do you not understand what I mean/Jed articles?

      I don’t know what you mean by ‘induction problem’ and so cannot comment on that. But I cannot see how knowledge can ‘start’ or ‘end’.

      “as soon u know the truth u want back the lie.”

      From this I can assume that you:

      1. consider yourself enlightened.

      2. want to go back to your ‘pre-enlightened’ state.

      Are these fair assumptions?

      You also seem to think that enlightenment = truth (“all his Human Adulthood stuff is also not truth (not enlightenment)”). That is simply not true.

      1. Yes. But 2. I consider impossible. Let’s say I miss it.

        I understand ur and Jeds articles, but I do not understand the “why”. Jed is taking himself way to serious and u too.

        But still I read everything, but Jed is only repeating the same stuff over and over again and u… I honestly don’t know what u are doing…

        1. Well, I don’t (consider self enlightened).

          Likewise, I do not consider anyone enlightened, regardless of the meanings people attach to the word, and those differ wildly not only from person to person, but at different life periods for the same person.

          “I do not understand the “why”. Jed is taking himself way to serious and u too”

          To a point, yes. If YOU don’t take yourself seriously… who else would? What else do you have in your life more important than yourself? What happens to the world when you are gone?

          Have you ever considered the above seriously and deeply?

          So yes of course you should honour your presence and your life in this world. This is the foundation of love, for if you respect you – you will respect another.

          and u… I honestly don’t know what u are doing…”

          I am expressing self. People do this in different ways: making works of art, conducting scientific experiments, chasing news stories for a newspaper, bringing up kids, fixing bridges, singing at pop concerts, staging plays…self- expression moves the world.

          Imagine no one expresses themselves in any way. Stand still and imagine the world.

          Do you want to deny this to people?

          As for Jed.. he does the same, but I’d like him to be true to his subject and his audience.

    2. “Even he himself is sure that he could reduce his “teachings” to one or two pages. So what the heck is this guy doing.”

      Making money and letting off steam. His mind is pretty busy, has got to go some place.

      P.S. Jed’s mind has ALWAYS been pretty busy. Mindless people do not produce reams and reams of writings, with quotes from other equally busy minds. Just think of all the time and effort that goes into reading other minds.. one has to understand them, to internalize what they are saying, then perhaps agree/disagree with them.

      Then produce own writing, and our Jed has done a fine job of that one. His is a VERY busy mind.

  7. Just to paint your target brighter. My interpretation in [brackets].

    [spiritual] AUTHOLYSIS is the breakdown of all or part of a cell or tissue [ego, limited self, or whatever he calls it] by self-produced enzymes [by its own game: discrimination and so on.]

    I couldn’t find “holotropy” (strange) but i did found “holotropic”
    wiki: Coined by psychiatrist Stanislav Grof. From ὅλος (hólos, “whole”) + -tropic (“turning or changing”), from τροπή (tropḗ, “movement towards something”) and τρέπω (trépō, “turn towards something”).
    listed meaning: Oriented or moving towards wholeness.
    “From my perspective, the holotropic [search for the wholeness (of being)] perspective is the natural state of consciousness of the Human Adult”

    “Those in the juvenile state [the mindset, their psyche] are generally around 98% hylo and 2 holo% [is about 98% schizoid entropy , and 2% unifying wholeness tendency].”

    “Once you confirm subjectively, to your own satisfaction, any non-ordinary phenomenon in your life — any instance of extra-sensory awareness, any confluence of events revealing unseen agency, any combination of fortune and timing that defies random chance, any act that can only be explained as manifestation or wishcraft
    [anything you might find special or hold dear, any deep realization, any revelation, vision, any miracle you think you’ve witnessed, or any answer to your prayers]
    {I think the quote is incomplete: “once you confirm” expects a “confirm as something” which is not found in the text but I can imply it from the word “wishcraft” = self induced phantasm]
    — then you have effectively falsified the mechanistic, materialistic, hylotropic model and verified the idealistic holotropic model for yourself.”

    1. I made my points clear. You lack the ability to grasp them.

      It is not about how the readers (you in this case) interpret the writings. The writings have only ONE interpretation IF one understands them fully.

      My points were firstly about borrowing from science and then bashing it. Jed is guilty of that, and all pseudo New Age practitioners whom he loves to criticize – have done the same: went to science and borrowed, so that their loony theories gained a sense of respectability.

      It is secondly about being immersed in the West Coast New Age ideology, but then… bashing it and pretending one is not part of the scene. Grof was much part of the scene, and so was Chopra and numerous others.

      Jed did not pass ‘go’ and collect ‘free pass’ card. He visited the prison and part of him remained there. He collected the same spiritual drivel that was dominant at the time of his personal search.

      It is thirdly about fake figures that Jed imagined or sucked up from his finger. If I stated that only 0.5% of the world population are ‘enlightened’ you would question me,, and would make this the point. Yet, for Jed anything goes, and nothing is questioned by… you and the likes.

      Lastly, it is about Jed beginning to speak in intangible imaginary terms about subjective experiences that may, or may not be, the same for his audience. And THEN presenting this as a (falsely) objective universal statement, in which coincidences are treated as ‘will of the universe’ and anything one wishes – comes ready on the plate or all IS ATTRIBUTED to the prior wish.

      That is simply dumb, and very dangerous. The point is.. Jed WASN’T LIKE THIS.

      He used to be rational, now he is.. delusional.

      On that note… I hope you will manifest yourself a beautiful concubine. Just wish for her, and she will appear.

      P.S. From your “wishcraft” = self induced phantasm] I see that you didn’t understand him. He said ‘idealistic’. Think about it too.

    2. “in which coincidences are treated as ‘will of the universe’ and anything one wishes – comes ready on the plate or IS ATTRIBUTED to the prior wish.”

      And I can tell you who else does exactly the same thing, because it sells.

      Kenneth McMordie and his Manifestation course, which he is successfully peddling to folks in Cambodia and Thailand. Can you see the resemblance?

      People want the magic wand. If one begins to promise as such – they will follow the Pied Piper to the ends of the Earth.

      I bet you Jed will come with something similar one day. Mark my words.

      1. “Own personal ramblings on the nature of this world begin to look so much more credible, right Jed? Holographic… quantum… autolysis… all good, to steal what is not yours”
        So words and their meanings are not free to use like the air shouldn’t be free to use just by anyone out there.

        “Scientists do not set out to ‘save the world’. They set out to make things that work, and will work anywhere in the universe.”
        Yup, science appeared in the world for the sake of science.

        “Autholysis!!! Hey, see? It sounds fucking awesome!”
        I ,make use of autholysis when I’m making bread. It is great.

        Jed: “From my perspective, the holotropic perspective is the natural state of consciousness of the Human Adult”“
        Tano: “Natural hey?…. This is a lie.”
        Also Tano: “I keep saying it is the natural process of MIND MATURATION.”
        But I suppose it’s not really about the same thing.
        I’d just add that the scarcity of a phenomena doesn’t imply its unnaturalness. Just think of how many planets out there hold life compared to the ones that don’t. does this make life unnatural?

        ““Those in the juvenile state are generally around 98% hylo and 2 holo%.”“
        Oops, I rushed into this, blinded by the desire of ridiculing you. Ok, your point is about the validity of the percentage. My interpretation was that it is not about percentage in population but percentage in the tendencies of the mind of one in the juvenile state. It can be read both ways, but corroborated with “In short, hylotropic consciousness is the mundane reality of the Segregated State of Human Childhood” I should be right. [btw, am I allowed to use such fancy words as “corroboration?”]
        About percentages, I have no clue. It’s his opinion and how could I know if he actually means it, if he’s correct, or if he’s using it as a metaphor? The metaphor is the only thing I can drive on. It’s a dramatic statement that to me means that the human mind (the normal ones, not the elite adults…) barely holds it together with that little “2%” tendency toward wholeness, without which we would all be full fledged schizophrenics, and actually there would be no humankind.
        “ If I stated that only 0.5% of the world population are ‘enlightened’ you would question me,, and would make this the point. Yet, for Jed anything goes, and nothing is questioned by… you and the likes.”
        Are you saying you are not given any slack? It comes hand in hand with fame and putting yourself out there… rejoice!

        About that quote with manifestation and wishcraft. I see I have to repeat myself, maybe clearer. You got it in reverse. It says the opposite of what you get from it. Either jed forgot to say what are those things to be confirmed as, or it is stated in a previous paragraph not quoted here, I say it is safe to assume that all those things listed there are to be confirmed as crap.
        Actually it is equivalent with another one of the quotes you bothered to share, one that you seem to agree with. If I knew how to format the text in the reply window I’d make it easier to read, but I don’t know. So:
        “[#1.a:“Once you confirm subjectively, to your own satisfaction],[#2: any non-ordinary phenomenon in your life — any instance of extra-sensory awareness, any confluence of events revealing unseen agency, any combination of fortune and timing that defies random chance, any act that can only be explained as manifestation or wishcraft] — [#1.b: then you have effectively falsified the mechanistic, materialistic, hylotropic model] and [#3: verified the idealistic holotropic model for yourself.”“]
        “[#1a+b: “Forget] [#2: enlightenment, bliss, contentment and compassion,] and [#3: focus on resuming your natural growth and development.”“
        1 is 1, 2 is 2 and 3 is 3. It does not say one should do the 2 part, as you imply.
        nevertheless, if I’m living in a parallel universe and the idea of the whole text you quote from really says that one should work on how to enhance his extra-sensory awareness, and so on, then I’ll laugh at it just like I did with your letter.
        I don’t know the text, and I wouldn’t bother to buy it, unless there’s some torrent out there, and even if it was available to me, I don’t think I would bother to read it. It’s the same old stuff. So all I have is what you say about it and what you cared to share from it, and I’m working on that.

        “On that note… I hope you will manifest yourself a beautiful concubine. Just wish for her, and she will appear.”
        My dear, if I could manifest one it would be in my image, well, slimmer, better looking, with boobs, and the right genitals, but it would be in my image! Would you like a second moi? And with the verbal appetite of a woman?

        “P.S. From your “wishcraft” = self induced phantasm] I see that you didn’t understand him. He said ‘idealistic’. Think about it too.”
        Thought about it, my statement stands. In the text idealistic is referring to the holotropic thing, the right stuff, unlike wishkraft which is bad.

        ““in which coincidences are treated as ‘will of the universe’ and anything one wishes – comes ready on the plate or IS ATTRIBUTED to the prior wish.”“
        A nice example of how not to quote. The line you quote just presents a situation. It doesn’t draw any conclusion. Instead you draw the conclusion for me and I’m supposed to believe it. From the look of it and considering the general theme of the previous lines you’ve quoted, I say it is well within #2, the wrong stuff.
        But you can always prove me wrong with the dreaded context, the one in the original text, not the one in your mind.

        If all you want to transmit is that the present deviled jed does not live up to the archetypal perfect jed of the past, you’re trying too hard, and it gets the best of you.

        1. So words and their meanings are not free to use”

          Sure they are. Call me Ahab.

          I ,make use of autholysis when I’m making bread. It is great.”

          Right. That’s just what Jed prescribed, right? Fucking around with it. Is that why it’s taking you so long? Where’s Jed’s burning passion? Where is determination? Where is the uncompromising quest for truth?

          At least he meant it for himself. You, on the other hand, are a dabbler.

          Is your bread tasty at least?

          Don’t waste my time, Ze.
          P.S. If you REALLY are serious and are not pushing air with your keyboard clicks just for the sake of it – condense what you wrote in a concise short format. Or else don’t bother. It is long, messy and unfocused.

          1. the meanings you give to the lines you’ve quoted are wrong.

            those things like “extra-sensory awareness” and “coincidences” are described as delusions to get rid off, not things to be sought for.

            i even wondered if you misinterpreted them on purpose.

            the validity or invalidity of my statements is there in the book you’re quoting from.

            with the misinterpretations i see in the article, all i’m left with is that you have a personal fiery grudge against jed, and that’s all there is.

            my bread is ok, the only one i eat, sourdough, only for self consumption.
            huh, sorry, it was a trap! autolysis in bread making is letting the flour soak in the water for some time, before adding anything else.

  8. @Ze

    Is English your first language, Ze?

    Try again. Get rid of the middle part and read it again:

    ““Once you confirm subjectively, to your own satisfaction, any non-ordinary phenomenon in your life — then you have effectively falsified the mechanistic, materialistic, hylotropic model and verified the idealistic holotropic model for yourself.”

    Falsified hylotropic model – the one of lower level consciousness (as per Jed).

    Verified holotropic model – the one of higher level consciousness (as per Jed).

    The question then is this: what does he refer to when he says “Once you confirm subjectively, to your own satisfaction, any non-ordinary phenomenon”?

    In that ‘ordinary phenomenon’ are included:

    – extra-sensory perception
    – confluence of events revealing unseen agency
    – combination of fortune and timing that defies random chance
    – any act that can only be explained as manifestation or wishcraft

    Confirm to self, revealing, confluence, defies, only be explained – are the expressions that bear a positive connotation. They indicate that the experience can be perceived as true.

    True. Verified. From the Latin ‘vero’==> true.

    Here is the short version of what he means:

    When one confirms to self (i.e. subjectively) that those phenomena are real – they have destroyed hylotropic model and now inhabit the verified holotropic model (as Jed says of himself he inhabits).

    This is the phenomena of channeling material and of other New Age practices.

    Jed has changed. He is slowly abandoning the language of reason. I mentioned this here:
    “Mysticism is a form of deceit. You are playing a mystic now, and not for lack of Clarity: I see a conscious choice. It sucks.”

    That was September 2018, more than a year ago.. See what else I will predict.

    https://enlightenmentmyth.com/2018/09/20/jed-talks-2-a-medley-of-real-and-unreal/

    1. “See what else I will predict.”

      In fact, let me try…

      In a couple of years or so Jed will write a book that would be a practical (haha!!) guide “How to manifest things in this real Human Adulthood world”.

      The name could be different of course, edgier and catchier in true Jed style, but the gist is the same: to ‘teach’ folks to get what they want: wealth, health, good looks, beautiful partners and so on.

      He will do this in his Jed uncompromising style: knock one on the head first for wanting those things, then will tell you in MANY MANY words this:

      If you want a fit partner – get fit yourself
      If you want to be wealthy – learn financial management, come up with a good business idea, learn how money works
      If you want to be healthy – give up bad habits, eat well, exercise

      Folks will pay for this, because… well, he is funny and successful in his own right so why the fuck not.

      Folks will read, but like in our enlightenment game – they will NOT BECOME healthy, wealthy and fit. Just in the same way they failed to ‘get enlightened’.

      They will keep buying books and dreaming away while reading those.

      They will get old, give up the ghost and die.

      The End.

      1. In fact, how about we think up the name of his new book collectively?

        It will be about a human adult in the dreamworld, making all their human dreams come true. Kind like advice on how to become top dog of own creation in this Dreamed up universe that does not exist.

        Jed is not much into enlightenment anymore, for a reason. If I remember correctly, Niz in his twilight years quipped to one of his admirer friends “Forget all that I said. If I knew then what I know now”.

        Anyone wants to have a go at creating a Jed-style manifesting book name… be my guest. Just keep in mind that there are already hundreds on the market; the spiritual market has a capacity to absorb all sorts of foolishness.

    2. ROLFL! If you’re right and I’m wrong, well, forget about me making a fool of myself, it would be amazing, and there isn’t much these days that can amaze me. I can’t stop laughing.
      Now that I’ve cooled down, I’m still not convinced. That phrase makes no sense to me. I can’t compute “once you confirm” used just as a… I don’t know how to explain [there, my English fails me].
      That phrase would make sense if it was like this: “once you confirm TO YOURSELF all that shit…” or “once you confirm AS CRAP all that shit…”
      Without those capitalized words it means nothing. I think those words must be in the previous phrases of the text.

      1. ““once you confirm TO YOURSELF all that shit…”

        Listen. You are replacing the meanings to suit what you’d like to see, because your mind is refusing to acknowledge that Jed did NOT CALL any of this non-ordinary phenomenon ‘shit’.

        He ENDORSED IT as valid.

        He said the opposite “Once you confirm subjectively”.

        CONFIRM. I.E. establish the certainty or validity of; verify. Look it up.

        SUBJECTIVELY = to oneself: Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world; Based on a given person’s experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual.

        Jed is avoiding the word ‘self’, perhaps because according to him, self does not exist. Personhood does not exist. Universe does not exist. All that exists is your subjective perceptions, aka C-Rex. And while I am all for personal exploration and utter subjectivity as the right to develop my own worldview and opinions (another maligned word).. it is only one half of what the world is and what we are.

        Let me tell you what I have always considered as the blip on his mind, and the blip quite inconsistent with the rest of what he wrote.. his remarks and approval of channeling stuff and of a few clear charlatans, such as Seth and that other thingy.. Abraham.

        For any rational person with half a brain this is simply the result of either mental instability of someone who claims to be guided by unseen entities OR a deliberate deceit.

        As I saw that he is going into this stuff big-ish now.. it was utterly disappointing and frankly.. I’ve lost a fair chunk of respect for his mind.

        As I said before.. if he truly believes what he wrote – his mind is fucked.
        If he does not believe it but chose to include this in the books – he lies.
        Either way is not acceptable, don’t you think? Not that I have any say in it, but I can state this.

        P.S. “f you’re right and I’m wrong, well, forget about me making a fool of myself”

        I was wrong about Ken and didn’t mind to state this. In between those wrongs – the right is born, a true understanding or true facts.

          1. How did you come to know the type? I’d think they would do their best to hide what moves them, which I interpret as ‘their true intentions’. So how do you go about finding out their true motivations and intentions?

            An obvious one, in regard to Esther Hicks, would be making a lot money, with very little if any regard for how she acquires it, i.e. dishonesty. And since she is a public figure she must like the adoration that comes with that.

          2. “How did you come to know the type?”

            Life experience. Met a few. Plus another factor, but that’s not for sharing here.

            “how do you go about finding out their true motivations and intentions?”

            A good question. A strong gut feeling plus observation plus, again, life experience. As a golden rule, your interests will always come second to the interests of another human being. The next question then is.. are they prepared to trample on your interests indiscriminately and without any consideration?

            What is Esther Hick’s true intent when gathering big audiences? And appearing in the film? And writing those books? It is interesting that her late husband was an Amway distributor; Amway is a pyramid scheme that used both psychological and financial means of influencing its flock, akin to Scientology., but as a financial organisation. It is interesting that the founders of both organisations hailed from the same stock as Esther. Jerry was successful in Amway, not a good recommendation in my book. I read quite a bit on the organisation in the past.

            Tell me who your husband is…

            This sort of digging and looking at how the events transpire in organisations and lives of individuals – leads one to answering the majority of life’s questions.

          3. Oof, yea that’s very telling, the fact she’s married to a man like that.

            I was surprised to read that Jed’s wife is into New-Age thinking.

        1. “Listen. You are replacing the meanings to suit what you’d like to see,”
          This could have been ended promptly if you simply quoted the previous paragraph.

          “because your mind is refusing to acknowledge that Jed did NOT CALL any of this non-ordinary phenomenon ‘shit’.”
          Actually I’m a “tad” inclined to not agree with you.

          ““once you confirm TO YOURSELF all that shit…”
          I rushed with this one, what I really wanted to convey is that the phrase is missing “once you confirm THAT all that shit HAS A CERTAIN QUALITY”
          The “valid” quality is not inherently implied in the use of “confirm.”

          Consider this example:
          “Once I confirm, subjectively, and to my own satisfaction, red, pink, and green, I see that the painting is wrong and I paint over a new one.”
          Would you agree that this phrase has the same structure as your quote?

          So, in my example, can you understand what I was thinking about those listed colors? Where they ok, wrong, missing or too much, where they about the first version of the painting or the second?
          You can’t! the 1st part is just an enumeration with no other meaning. Of course, those colors exist, but that’s all.

          Just as this quote you provided ““in which coincidences are treated as ‘will of the universe’ and anything one wishes – comes ready on the plate or IS ATTRIBUTED to the prior wish.” …. In which what? In what situation are those coincidences, etc…???

          Sorry, you give me no reason to think that the work you’ve been quoting from is actually promoting this magical thinking.

          “Jed is avoiding the word ‘self’, perhaps because according to him, self does not exist. Personhood does not exist. Universe does not exist. All that exists is your subjective perceptions, aka C-Rex. And while I am all for personal exploration and utter subjectivity as the right to develop my own worldview and opinions (another maligned word).. it is only one half of what the world is and what we are.”

          Let me have a try on this: Within the subjective perspective all should be treated as not definite. Within the objective perspective things are not debatable. Or as the Buddha says: “the world must be seen as an illusion” and “all things must be seen (left alone) in their solitude.”

          “As I said before.. if he truly believes what he wrote – his mind is fucked.”
          “If he does not believe it but chose to include this in the books – he lies.”
          “Either way is not acceptable, don’t you think? Not that I have any say in it, but I can state this.”

          The first 2, yes. The 3rd… I don’t know. In what perspective is it not acceptable?

          You say he’s “capable of walking the straight path” – but if he’s really going into magical realms… it is my opinion that if one walks the straight it is because he cannot do otherwise.

          The things he wrote in the beginning, the good ones, anyone can write them, stepped over or not. So maybe jed is a fiction, his works are fiction, and the author is just a writer. A writer like Carlos Castaneda and his path of the warrior. Hell, I can still remember a time when I read The Alchemist by “I forget his name” and it really moved me “when one is sincere in his search the whole universe bends to give him a hand” or something like this.
          Only in this perspective, it is acceptable, a work of fiction.

          On the other hand, if one takes to the heart a special meaning of the synchronicities he may encounter, of any perception he cannot explain, or of any unlikely event that luckily suits his purposes… actually looking for them… of course there will be no self, it’s a sure path to the disintegration of the self and to insanity.
          I have to say that “no crap materialism” also falls into the category of those “special meanings.”

          “I was wrong about Ken…”
          Speaking of Ken, could it be a special reciprocity between Ken’s new manifestation course and Jed’s magical endeavors [if it really is so] book? A certain synchronicity?

          1. ““Once I confirm, subjectively, and to my own satisfaction, red, pink, and green, I see that the painting is wrong and I paint over a new one.”

            He did not say simply ‘pink, red and green’.

            He qualified this first part with “any non-ordinary phenomenon in your life — any instance of extra-sensory awareness, any confluence of events revealing unseen agency, any combination of fortune and timing that defies random chance, any act that can only be explained as manifestation or wishcraft ”

            As I said in it he used positive collocation vocabulary.

            The meaning of the sentence is clear to me, and I am not going to continue to argue with you. Even if I brought you a piece of paper signed by Jed that stated I understood him correctly – you would have argued against it. Why? Because in your head Jed is an unreal ideal figure who simply cannot make statements that call to question holes in his thinking.

            It is the same way of being stuck in one’s mind as those people who know Ken is a con man, and yet flock to his forum. They cannot break out of this mental prison.

            You cannot think, Ze. A good example of what the mental lens is all about, the one that prevents people from seeing things for what they are. I repeat: you see what you want to see, and not what is there.

            Hehe, it also reminds me of the impeachment and how no matter what Trump did – the senate will not sway (support your own!!), and will argue to the end that coercing a state figure of another country to help topple the opponent is normal both from the point of view of legality and the point of view of morality. Oh wait!!! Morality is not even crossing their minds.

            I’m out.

          2. “Speaking of Ken, could it be a special reciprocity between Ken’s new manifestation course and Jed’s magical endeavors [if it really is so] book? A certain synchronicity?”

            See… here is the answer to your stubborn insistence that I got it wrong… YOU BELIEVE IN THAT SORT OF SHITE.

            It is so predictable that I am feeling bored now.

            Sorry for not providing you with the confirmation, but no, there are no synchronicities. There are random events that occasionally take place in the same time period.

            There is no meaningful connection between ‘synchronicities’, ever.

          3. i was ironic when i used “synchronicity.” i meant that since they share the pen name and this “new ideology” and also the timeline maybe there’s a direct [physical] connection between the two.

          4. “since they share the pen name”

            They don’t ‘share’ the pen name, that is an inaccurate statement. Kenneth McMordie impersonates Jed McKenna and so grabbed the pseudonym for own nefarious purposes.

            There is no connection as far as I can see. In the 1970s Ken lived for some time in Southern California. There are significant differences in past occupations, age, interests and a general outlook. You followed the EM from the start; I tried to prove there was connection, but in the end found none.

            Now, even if we imagine that Ken bumped into Jed some time in the 1990s, twisted Jed’s ear with the enlightenment tales (as he’s been doing it with his forums) and departed into the blue yonder… Jed’s books are written as an account of someone who had personally experienced this fucked up ‘transformation’ into nothing. I can vouch for this, since well… that is how it really takes place – full steam ahead on steroids and into fuck knows what, but it drags one without mercy like a rag doll until.. well, until all becomes clear.

            Those who say it wasn’t this way.. are still wandering around in the desert, albeit in a significantly more aware state.

            While in contrast Ken was still inquiring what ego death means – in 1996 haha!!

            Nah. No connection. But Kenneth loved the books.

    3. This is in reply to “Z’s” and Em’s discussion about what Jed is talking about in his latest ‘installment”. First I would like to preface this with I am neither arguing for or against what either of you are saying. I honestly have not decided what I think about this whole Jed thing which is why I have been reading on this site. Also, for better or worse I have read his books. That is what prompted me to reply here. There was something I read in ‘Dreamstate: A Conspiracy Theory” that rang a bell with all this discussion. Z posted “t
      hose things like “extra-sensory awareness” and “coincidences” are described as delusions to get rid off, not things to be sought for.”
      In Dreamstate Jed says (and I am going to shorten it here, otherwise this would be an extremely long post) “If we want to see more and understand better, we have to rise up above the herd….but looking at what? Seeing what? Glad you asked. Behold, the Quotidian Miracle…the ordinary kind that we all experience all the time…you know it was more than mere coincidence because it happens too often and because you experience enough stuff like it that you know there’s more to it than meets the eye….Those are quotidian, workaday miracles, and that’s where you look. You look where you know there’s more than meets the eye….the little glimpses behind the curtain that show you where and what you really are….the mystical dimension of life is so plainly visible that you have to actively employ doublethink not to see it…Miracles happen. The implications of that single observation can change everything if you let it….commonplace miracles are your invitation to a superior understanding of being, and you accept this invitation by paying attention.” So it sounds to me like he is talking about ‘coincidences” and not as if they are delusions. He then goes on to talk about divination, Tarot and the I Ching and using that to go further. So I can see where EM is going with him writing a book on manifestation next.

      1. “commonplace miracles are your invitation to a superior understanding of being” says Jed.

        Yes, he talks about coincidences here and affords them a worthy spot in the process of understanding. It seems that even back then Jed had some twisted beliefs.

        He is effectively saying “There are no coincidences”, all is regulated by superior intelligence. He may as well say god exists.

        This is why I was gutted by his choice to move closer to this nonsense, after 20 years of playing around with coherence and clarity.

        WTF Jed?

        I must also say that when I read the first book these were omitted by me more or less. I didn’t read the book with great attention, and I already knew at that point that any so called special coincidences are nothing more that chance OR mental processes that place people in situations they subconsciously want to experience.

        What I mean by these two is the following:

        1. Mental process. It is no coincidence if some of you now notice Tarot cards or some such related thing. This would be because the above from Leanne mentioned Tarot, and your mind registered that subconsciously.

        If one is thinking of emigrating to Botswana then their mind would begin to register all Botswana related things.

        2. Pure chance. You are holidaying in Indonesia, and the local volcano begins to erupt after having been silent for a few decades. Or a truck runs you over tomorrow. In both cases it could have been another person, but it happened to be you.

        Coincidences are dumb. There is no ‘supreme intelligence’ behind them.

        Jed’s wife was into all this shit. Haha, no man can escape his woman’s influence, no matter how smart.

        It is sad. Jed didn’t need a girl with a clear thinking; he could do all that for both of them. Instead, he needed a mother figure who’d take care of all his needs, a Sonaya type.

        In the end of the day men look for a refuge from harsh survival tasks just as much as women.

        1. I think he also talked about ‘bibliomancy’ in the first book. Where he opens a book to a random page and that happens to be just the right passage that the student he is with needed to hear.

          I still have the beliefs of ‘Everything happens for a reason’, ‘It’s all moving towards something better’ and others similar to that. It’s very subtle, and rationally I can say that it’s b.s., but the belief is still there. It’s a difficult one to let go, it feels so safe and also true. Like ‘of course everything happens for a reason, otherwise what is going on, why are we here, why am I here. There must be a reason for everything. There MUST be.’ If not, it must mean that bad shit just happens for no reason whatsoever other than that most humans treat each other like shit. That my life can possibly turn out to be horrible, that there is so much potential for suffering. That all the shit I have experienced has no fucking point to it whatsoever. Even though I might have learnt from that, that that is not the reason it happened. It just did.

          Yesterday I started seriously questioning that belief and it’s very upsetting. But now that I’m aware that I still belief in that, I can’t hold on to it much longer.

          1. “he also talked about ‘bibliomancy’ in the first book.”

            I’m not sure if he did specifically mentioned this. I remember the episode (he said something like a wave of gratitude washed over him with every little meaning of the phrase he found). It could have been just a device to illustrate his point and not an expression of belief in random book phrases predicting something meaningful or being correct right on cue.

            “I still have the beliefs of ‘Everything happens for a reason’, ‘It’s all moving towards something better’ “

            Observe the tackiness and meaninglessness of this video. Your belief is unfortunately a good mirror to that.

            There is no reason. YOU create your own reasons for being alive. Or you commit suicide. Your choice. No one gives a shit anyway aside your parents IF they are the loving type, because not all parents are.

            P.S. Being culturally British.. the video also reminds me of Tony Blair.

          2. Here is exactly what he writes in the first book :

            “I have a copy of the Gita on the table between us. I open it at random with the intention of finding a passage well-suited to the subject I’m discussing. Works every time. Gratitude permeates me as I read her this statement by Krishna: “I am come as Time, the ultimate waster of people, ready for the hour that ripens to their doom. The warriors, arrayed in hostile armies facing each other, shall not live, whether you strike or stay your hand.” I fall silent as layers of meaning wash through me one after another and my appreciation causes a swelling in my chest. “Wonderful,” I think. “Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.” ”

            He literally states “Works every time.”

            ( While I was searching that, I read a passage I found very amusing : “I’m not writing this book to make money or gain followers or to be popular. I’m writing it to get it out of my system.” “not to make money” ? lol 😉 )

          3. Yes, that’s the passage I recall.

            ““I’m not writing this book to make money or gain followers or to be popular. I’m writing it to get it out of my system.”

            I wish I could believe this “getting out of my system”, but the facts tell otherwise:

            1. The first book should have been enough to ‘get this out of his system’. Eight books.. perhaps not.

            2. It was proposed as a commercial product from the very start, and was advertised accordingly, with seeking the endorsements from all those people whom Jed rallied against in his Trilogy and beyond. I doubt any of those noticed this sharp inconvenient detail, what with the egos being sufficiently tickled. “Someone is asking for my endorsement! I have arrived!”

          4. Yes, but are those “endorsements” even real ? I mean, all of them ? It’s so easy to make up stuff in order to sell books. (And we know “Jed Mckenna” like to write fiction, so why not some fictionnal reviews/endorsements/praises ?.)

            My guess is that a lot of those “endorsements” or “praises” are just fake. They are just there to make people buy those shitty books. Most of them are just not genuine.

            I’ve just checked a few.

            “Richard Ritsudo Morrissey, Zen Buddhist Priest “These books have profoundly changed my life.” ” I found some things about that guy, he also seemed to be in the “spiritual business” . ( see here : https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20070116/281530811545135 )

            “Ray Napolitano inner directions fondation : Jed McKenna’s books are so compelling I can hardly put them down!” I found nothing about that guy’s name. I just found a crappy spiritual business website called “inner directions”. I quote “As you read through the distinctive selection of content, do consider supporting this meaningful work by making a Tax-Deductible Donation.” money money money https://www.innerdirections.org/

            Shirley Roe from “allbooks reviews”. I found some things about her on the internet. I’m pretty sure she didn’t even read the trilogy.

            I found this for instance : “The founder and managing editor of Allbooks Review International, Shirley enjoys assisting authors with reviews and promotion.” ASSISTING authors with REVIEWS AND PROMOTION.

            https://www.independentauthornetwork.com/shirley-a-roe.html

            “In addition to being an author, Shirley A. Roe is the Managing Editor and founder of Allbooks Review, an author promo and review source.” PROMO and REVIEW SOURCE.

            http://allbooksreviewinternational.blogspot.com/2009/05/

            In short : my BS detector is very high ! 😉

          5. “My guess is that a lot of those “endorsements” or “praises” are just fake.”

            All these people exist, I don’t think the endorsements are fake.

            Jed was an unknown and needed as many people as possible to give a word for his first (and second) book. There are endorsements on Wisefool Press, some of those people are general public, and I know they do exist too.

            After the first two books Jed was confident he didn’t need a jump pole anymore, so the reviews were removed.

            Out of all the received by him reviews Jed returned a favour only once by endorsing a book. The author is well known and reasonably popular in the spiritual world, and keeps writing, so I guess the Law of Attraction in this case was helped by mutual support: you did this for me, so I will return the favour. Attracted a bit more readership for both = more business.

            You need to keep checking your facts. These are all small time enterprises or, in some of those links, a donation/free propositions. But fake reviews? I doubt it.

  9. P.S.

    “all i’m left with is that you have a personal fiery grudge against jed, and that’s all there is.”

    You are quick to judge, and how can this be personal, I’ve never met the guy, and he has never done anything to me personally.
    There are many times when I defended Jed against what I perceive are unfair and non-objective attacks.

    I also defended Ken McMordie. One has to keep balance, truth is a great compass.

    I state what I see. What I see is Jed moving away from what once was at least close to truth and into the fog he once detested.

    I detest the fog.

Leave a comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s