Jed McKenna's Theory Of Everything XII

Scott Bradley

"I do what I do because I exist in a co-operative partnership with some higher thingamajiggy to which I am completely surrendered and entrusted." Thus does McKenna explain both his writing and, more generally, his version of following the flow. Sound familiar? Well, it does to me, since I frequently say basically the same thing, though admittedly only as a way of being to which I aspire. What is different, however, is the "co-operative partnership" bit. I mentioned previously that, as I recalled from his previous books, he sees himself as somehow directed. Though I am in no position to disagree with this assertion, it does make me wonder. According to McKenna, nothing is real and Brahman "has no skin in the game"; how then can we, or why would we, be directed? There's some purposiveness lurking in here somewhere. Is there no escape? Does that without content have purpose? Isn't purpose content?

Lest we think this is merely semantics, that this directedness is simply a realization that what 'is' is right and thus what happens directs us, McKenna's dog, through a "look", is a vehicle by which the "higher thingamajiggy" communicates its intentions (?) to him. For bibliologists this should come as no surprise since God himself similarly spoke to one of his prophets through an ass. But then, McKenna has already said, "Adios, Dios".

When I say that I am in no position to argue, I mean it. It's just more than I, personally, can believe. McKenna says that every belief, without exception, is false. Agreed. But he also seems to think that spinning this rationalistic apologetic for his experience should somehow induce us to "try it". On what basis? On the basis that we believe it to be true, or true enough, or possibly true?

Admittedly, I have ‘faith’-issues that border on the entirely unjustifiable tendency toward disbelief. One thing I find very difficult to believe, for instance, is that I am I AM, and not believing it, I don’t pursue it. Thank God (I AM that I AM) it doesn't matter!

There is the directedness of life itself, of course. Life is living. Life would have us live. We require no reason to do so. Surrendering into and entrusting oneself to life is accepting this direction. But then life does not have some special mission for any one living thing that would inspire it to purposely speak through dogs and asses; at least not in my experience.

Though it may be heretical in the context of McKenna’s truth-realization, I would suggest that surrender into the life experience itself is no different than surrendering into the thingamajiggy — surely these are not two? The only difference is that life is what I most immediately ‘am’; there’s no need to for anything else; and it need not be capitalized.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.