Imagination of the Heart Book

Not so long ago I've read Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing and as it can be seen here I liked it and I decided to read McKenna's next book(s). Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment is its sequel, but you do not get anything additional with ''enlightenment'' part, only bit expanded. Big part of it is what happens after taking First Step told through the character of Julie, more precisely her letters. As in first the book, story is presented as it has really happened and as in the first book from the very beginning I got feeling that it did not. Such thing could usually bother me, but as in the first book seems it does not work that way with McKenna. He writes with style, he is precise, humorous, sharp and there is lot to catch between the lines (even he does repeatedly subtly helps with that). Now I recall on thing he said in the first book about movies which can easily be deal here.

I think that book is designed for a reader. Different characters are introduced so he could address variety of readers through his interaction with them which is witty, nicely ''arrogant'', intelligent and humorous as in the first book.
Again you get excerpt from several sources at beginnings of chapters, or through whole chapters, but novelty is the integration on new level of one novel and that is Moby Dick. Well, I'm not sure is he finally the one who managed to crack the story behind Melville's book, but his interpretation is undisputedly the best one I encountered. It has depth and also it makes sense, which together is seldom a case with Moby's interpretations. I intend to read it once more through his glasses.

Now, the reason why I fancy his book, while I think other spiritual books are mostly bullshit, is that it is not actually spiritual and also, I'm quite familiar with his way of looking at, well, everything. It has been going since I was kid and it grew stronger in last five or so years, while also being irreversible. And then I read his book, which gave some kind of verbal form to all that has been disorderly untangling all along. But, there are two things where I part my way with him. First one is, that he is stressing out the agony of the very process. There was no agony with me, mostly it could be summarized by anxiety when something got unfolded followed by relief of new clarity in seeing my past self, world, reality and blabla. It is surprising to see someone else going through hell, anger, desperation as he broadly depicts it. And the other thing we differ is when he flirts with patterns and ways of universe, like there are no accidents in world. I strongly disagree, everything is subject to chance, governed only by laws of physics which is the human's so far best try, no matter how petty, to understand cosmos.

Soooo, what was I saying, the book is not two-dimensional, there is a lot to read between the lines and he even leaves clues all around like he is trying to get to the reader with subtle approach of poking him in the eye instead of posting big plain billboard HERE IT IS, THIS IS IT. Even though second book is only sequel with nothing additional I liked it more than first, something that at moment I can't verbally explain, maybe in couple of days or weeks when thoughts settle up. If you liked the first book, you'll like the second. If you did not, if I could, I'd feel sorry for you.