Rating: 
Summary: Excellent in Spirit, poor in science
Review: "Marriage," as I'll call this book is an excellent, clear summary of a lot of Wilber's work on transpersonal psychology, esp. their levels and dimensions. On the topics of psychology, philosophy, religion, and their integration in Lovejoy's "Great Chain of Being," I don't think you'll find any writer more knowledgeable than Ken Wilber. Yet I feel the book does not really achieve its purpose, which is unifying science and religion. In discussing religion Wilber does a superb job of delineating what religion really needs to be: religion, really the spiritual *experience*, is not the literal myths that true believers hang their hats on, nor the differing versions of God that separate the followers of the almost countless religions and religious concepts in the world. Rather, it is the internal process(es) of self-awareness, the "eye of contemplation," that can lead one to higher levels, to God, Oneness, or whatever you want to call the Intelligence that pervades everything. I found the discussion of the many subjects that unite in Wilber's elucidation of the spiritual journey to be more clear and concise in "Marriage" than any of his books I have (tried to) read since his groundbreaking first book, "Transformations of Consciousness." Sometimes I find Wilber's highly-praised books to be far too intellectual. Another outstanding part of this book are Wilber's excellent definitions of what he calls the "dignity" and "disaster" of modernity, dignity being the differentiation of the spheres of art, morals, and science, followed by the "disaster" of disassociation, where science has come to claim hegemony over not only truth but how to discover truth "empirically." Wilber's discussions of the idealist, romantic, and post-modern movements, which have tried to heal the split, are also first-rate. On the other hand his discussion of science is weak, and to me it simply doesn't work, not because his intentions aren't right, but because science simply tends to be "God-less," and his arguments to convince scientists are not convincing, and I don't agree with the implication that science somehow has to validate religious traditions. To me that is conceding far too much to science. As well Wilber seems to have little or no feel for what scientists do, and perhaps the real purpose of the book is not any kind of marriage between the two spheres, but rather how to use a "scientific method" of distilling the wisdom gained from the world's mystics (from many different religious traditions), and testing one's owns spirituality and good deeds against the experiences of these mystics. Science as it is practiced today simply does not encompass these value spheres, and perhaps it should not, other than the obvious ethical cases where scientific knowledge is used for deleterious purposes. Strangely enough, the author does not write a word about such an "injunction" for science and scientists, though a major part of his arguments about science validating religion evolves from injunctions that are a vital part of the scientific process. The point is, the scientists who try to marry their disciplines with spirituality, like Deepak Chopra and Larry Dossey, are already doing a fine job, in my opinion, and these pathbreakers really dig into the details of such a convergence. So why do we need an intellectual treatise by a non-scientist which itself gives practically no details from any scientific discipline to make the case for this "marriage?" To give one example, Wilber never really defines what he means by evolution. Is he talking about strict Darwinian evolution or is he talking about spiritual evolution? The so-called rejection of Darwinian evolution by religion is overblown in this book. Most religions accept Darwin's main thesis, that life has evolved over very long spans of time. What any religious organization would naturally reject are the implications of Darwinian evolution, that life has no meaning because all life evolved through chance. Yet I know of not one organized religion that actually promulgates what Wilber discusses in his books: the evolution of the soul, which is far more important for humans than the tedious details of physical evolution. Evolution is a complicated subject that warrants more words than I have here. Perhaps an even better example of a true marriage between science and religion would be the evidence provided by scientific research that love and compassion are actually good for the physical heart! It would be very entertaining to read reviews of this book by some of the spokemen of mainstream science, such as Steven Weinberg and the authors of books like "Higher Superstition." I would wager that they would find this book quite amusing. They aren't interested in merging science with anything, as they are convinced that science has nothing to do with Spirit or the unity of anything. And I say fine, because as far as I'm concerned science has no business validating any internal experience. I'd recommend "Seduced By Science" for a good discussion against the need in an age dominated by science for scientific "validatation" of anything spiritual. In the end I would highly recommend this book for its content, regardless whether it achieves its purpose. But I have found books that really get down to the nitty gritty of how science (really modern physics) might parallel religious traditions more useful in defining a "marriage" of the two spheres, though in a sense the scope of this book is far wider. To name 3 of these books, I'd recommend "The Tao of Physics," "The Self-Aware Universe," and "Religion And Science (by Ian Barbour). Also, John Haught's "God After Darwin" really goes into the details of how to reconcile religion with science. I do not agree with Wilber's contention that science is strictly "monological."
Rating:
Summary: Excellent in Spirit, poor in science
Review: "Marriage," as I'll call this book is an excellent, clear summary of a lot of Wilber's work on transpersonal psychology, esp. their levels and dimensions. On the topics of psychology, philosophy, religion, and their integration in Lovejoy's "Great Chain of Being," I don't think you'll find any writer more knowledgeable than Ken Wilber. Yet I feel the book does not really achieve its purpose, which is unifying science and religion. In discussing religion Wilber does a superb job of delineating what religion really needs to be: religion, really the spiritual *experience*, is not the literal myths that true believers hang their hats on, nor the differing versions of God that separate the followers of the almost countless religions and religious concepts in the world. Rather, it is the internal process(es) of self-awareness, the "eye of contemplation," that can lead one to higher levels, to God, Oneness, or whatever you want to call the Intelligence that pervades everything. I found the discussion of the many subjects that unite in Wilber's elucidation of the spiritual journey to be more clear and concise in "Marriage" than any of his books I have (tried to) read since his groundbreaking first book, "Transformations of Consciousness." Sometimes I find Wilber's highly-praised books to be far too intellectual. Another outstanding part of this book are Wilber's excellent definitions of what he calls the "dignity" and "disaster" of modernity, dignity being the differentiation of the spheres of art, morals, and science, followed by the "disaster" of disassociation, where science has come to claim hegemony over not only truth but how to discover truth "empirically." Wilber's discussions of the idealist, romantic, and post-modern movements, which have tried to heal the split, are also first-rate. On the other hand his discussion of science is weak, and to me it simply doesn't work, not because his intentions aren't right, but because science simply tends to be "God-less," and his arguments to convince scientists are not convincing, and I don't agree with the implication that science somehow has to validate religious traditions. To me that is conceding far too much to science. As well Wilber seems to have little or no feel for what scientists do, and perhaps the real purpose of the book is not any kind of marriage between the two spheres, but rather how to use a "scientific method" of distilling the wisdom gained from the world's mystics (from many different religious traditions), and testing one's owns spirituality and good deeds against the experiences of these mystics. Science as it is practiced today simply does not encompass these value spheres, and perhaps it should not, other than the obvious ethical cases where scientific knowledge is used for deleterious purposes. Strangely enough, the author does not write a word about such an "injunction" for science and scientists, though a major part of his arguments about science validating religion evolves from injunctions that are a vital part of the scientific process. The point is, the scientists who try to marry their disciplines with spirituality, like Deepak Chopra and Larry Dossey, are already doing a fine job, in my opinion, and these pathbreakers really dig into the details of such a convergence. So why do we need an intellectual treatise by a non-scientist which itself gives practically no details from any scientific discipline to make the case for this "marriage?" To give one example, Wilber never really defines what he means by evolution. Is he talking about strict Darwinian evolution or is he talking about spiritual evolution? The so-called rejection of Darwinian evolution by religion is overblown in this book. Most religions accept Darwin's main thesis, that life has evolved over very long spans of time. What any religious organization would naturally reject are the implications of Darwinian evolution, that life has no meaning because all life evolved through chance. Yet I know of not one organized religion that actually promulgates what Wilber discusses in his books: the evolution of the soul, which is far more important for humans than the tedious details of physical evolution. Evolution is a complicated subject that warrants more words than I have here. Perhaps an even better example of a true marriage between science and religion would be the evidence provided by scientific research that love and compassion are actually good for the physical heart! It would be very entertaining to read reviews of this book by some of the spokemen of mainstream science, such as Steven Weinberg and the authors of books like "Higher Superstition." I would wager that they would find this book quite amusing. They aren't interested in merging science with anything, as they are convinced that science has nothing to do with Spirit or the unity of anything. And I say fine, because as far as I'm concerned science has no business validating any internal experience. I'd recommend "Seduced By Science" for a good discussion against the need in an age dominated by science for scientific "validatation" of anything spiritual. In the end I would highly recommend this book for its content, regardless whether it achieves its purpose. But I have found books that really get down to the nitty gritty of how science (really modern physics) might parallel religious traditions more useful in defining a "marriage" of the two spheres, though in a sense the scope of this book is far wider. To name 3 of these books, I'd recommend "The Tao of Physics," "The Self-Aware Universe," and "Religion And Science (by Ian Barbour). Also, John Haught's "God After Darwin" really goes into the details of how to reconcile religion with science. I do not agree with Wilber's contention that science is strictly "monological."
Rating: 
Summary: Most Accessible Wilber book!
Review: Although Wilber is one of the most advanced thinkers of our time, most of his books are so diffucult to understand perhaps because it is too advanced for most of us. With this book, Wilber takes common knowledge and introduces his ideas in relation to these things by using something very similar to a scaffolding technique. I thought this was very effective and allows many more of us to thoroughly appreciate his theory. Although I think Toru Sato's theory takes it one step further in the exceptional book called "The Ever-Transcending Spirit" he uses the same type of technique to deliver his message. I think this is an excellent way to present advanced material like this to a general audience. If you are interested in developing a good understanding of Wilber's theory, this may be the right book for you. If you want to understand more, read "The Ever-Transcending Spirit" by Toru Sato.
Rating:
Summary: Got Wisdom?
Review: As a meditator and minister for over 20 years, and as a person educated in the "hard" sciences at the University of California, I find Ken Wilber's treatment of "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" to be first rate. He clearly shows that science and religion are concerned with different domains of experience, each domain being valid. Contrary to one reviewer's comments, Wilber does not say that science must validate religion. He does, however, teach that spirituality is a kind of science insofar as all sciences involve three strands: (1) an object domain, (2) specific injuctions concerning the observation of that domain, and (3) sharing of individual observations among those who have completed the second strand. Spirituality, then, is a science because it involves an object domain (the subtle and spiritual levels of consciousness) and specific injunctions for observing the domain (the contemplative act). Wilber does, however, tend to over-emphasize the formal "scientific" nature of the contemplative process, and this can leave readers with the feeling that unless they are engaged in a formal, traditional and regimented meditation practice under professional guidance they are not on an authentic spiritual path. In this respect, I feel Wilber confuses formal or academic reality with everyday experience. He focuses so much on professional science that he tends to lose sight of the fact that when talking about the realm of "sense" we are firstly talking about what it means to be human living with our five senses, not about professional scientists! In other words, as regards the realm of "sense," the "three strands" have their analogs in daily experience: we feel something touching our ankle, we look down at our ankle and say "hi, kitty!" and Grandma looks over at you and says, "oh, kitty likes you!" So we have fulfilled the three strands. Similarly, in spirituality, we may have spiritual perceptions of spiritual things without ever doing any formal meditation practices. I just wish Wilber would acknowledge this more. But on the whole, this book is wonderful, clear, concise, extremely intelligent and wise. I would recommend that readers also check out Wilber's "Eye to Eye" because in it he goes into depth about the "three strand" concept and ties it into both science and religion in an extraordinarily nifty way.
Rating:
Summary: Distinguishing between Science and Spirituality...
Review: As someone who has spent a few decades practicising meditation, and also over a decade studying physics in school, what I most appreciated about this book is that Wilber clearly distinguishes between the goals & means of science and those of the spiritual enterprises. He has an interesting diagram which he uses to map different types of concepts to their subject matter: although the specifics of the diagram are to some extent arbitrary, the general approach is actually useful. I was first irritated by it; but when I started to create my own modified mapping, I began to see what he was trying to get at. My own final diagram (if I were to bother to finish it) would be somewhat different, but perhaps not significantly: it is not the details that are important. To my mind, it is helpful both in providing to those primarily of either a scientific or spiritual orientation some insight into the goals of the other; and also as a corrective to those who want to meld these two different orientations together (a mistake, in my opinion). This gives it an advantage over other books to which it has been compared, such as "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters," among others. Some reviewers have expressed a degree of skepticism that someone who is not a specialist can attain enough depth to provide a useful framework in which both science and spirituality can be considered. I also came to this book with this skepticism. However, I eventually found myself favorably impressed with the extent to which Wilber's rather original insights and framing resonated with my own observations from years of study, in both the subjects of Buddhist concepts and theoretical physics (separately, of course). Despite the odds, sometimes something useful does come of inter-disciplinary efforts!
Rating: 
Summary: Good summation of Wilbers work
Review: First off this is a fine summation and introduction of Ken's ideas and theories. The book stands alone, it does not require the reader to read anything else of his - unlike his latter works. Ken's basic premise is that one can use the empirical science model of evaluation to spiritual domains of knowledge. Unlike Traditionalists - who are epistemological pluralists and relegate the sciences to lowest level of existence ie; matter.
Where Ken is trying to do opposite that modern western science is a partner to spiritual progres by showing that it works all the way up - in theory. Which so far no major scientist has endorsed and won't happen for obvious reasons. Along the way to this point Ken shows the 4 quadrandt model,holons, etc. Takes on flatland science (current mentality of viewing everything in the world as inconnected 'its' and destruction of quality and the interior domains of knowledge). His dissection of post-modernism is the best I've ever read. He exposes the contradictions within it and put's it down like a mad dog. He also deals with the mythic aspect of religion quite well, but I'll the previous reviewers speak on this. Ken, tries quite hard to make modern western science into something more than it or could be accepted by most scientists.
That it can be of use in spiritual matters - which of course provokes howls of outrage by those in science. Because they already know that the interior domains can't be quantified nor measured, hence in their minds don't exist. As Ken said 'Love is reduced to serotonin levels" or "mind reduced to binary bits". He also states that all paths end up in the same place. Though I doubt a Zennist or Christian/Sufi mystic would agree since both have diametrically opposing views on many subjects. One believes we have a soul and the other does not, the Zennists believe we don't even exist nor does the world - it's all an illusion. While the monotheisits state otherwise. How Ken can both are the same is stretching too far. His other mistake is that stating spiritual progress is a cooperative method. It is not, especially in the spiritual traditions he talks about. Whether Zen or Tibetan Buddhism or Vedanta. These are all authoritarian structures some brutual and abusive. You either play the guru's game and accept what they say or hit the highway. You don't approach your Roshi and say "I've accomplished 'x' or that I disagree with you're statement that I did not experience satori" Obedience and acceptance are hallmarks of the far eastern paths.
His use of Adi Da and Chogyam Trungpa as realized teachers under scores is ignorance of his thesis. Both Da and Trungpa were/are notorius abusers of students, scam artists and took to even beating and have sex with the students and in many ways were amoral lechers of the worst kind. Yet Ken thinks these men are spiriutal adepts. Because of his blinders Ken, I believe has refused to include the ethical/moral domains in his models. How else can one explain his admiration of Da and Trungpa. In closing Ken shows himself to be broad ranging thinker and theorist but flawed in the spiritual and ethical realms. He writes about spiritual topics that only a few in any century have experienced - he most assuredly has not. Why do you think that only Deepak Chorpa endorsed this book? Not Huston Smith or any big name in spirituality - they know him. His attempt to join spirit and science won't work, both sides have too much invested in their power structures and ideas. Not to mention being incompatible on many respects. But it is a good intro to Ken, if you like this work, you'll like his other works.
Rating:
Summary: Great & Accessible Intro to Wiber IV Integral Philosophy
Review: Have you ever found a book that looked fairly interesting but completley blew you away instead? Where you finished the last page only to sit there in stunned silence thinking, "Holy...this is exactly what I've been looking for!" This was that book for me. After reading it the first time, I felt as if I should have discovered this slim volume in a dusty, darkened attic trunk like some long lost hidden treasure, rather than at a book store at O'Hare airport. It's the first book by Wilber I read, and since then I've devoured everything else of his I could get my hands on. Yes, it's that good.
'Sense & Soul' is a great place to take a quick dip in the deep blue ocean that is Wilber's Integral Philosophy. His grand idea is simple yet profound, and a Herculean undertaking: everybody's right (to a degree), so we'll gather the best of all knowledge, east and west, from both the past and today while discarding what doesn't work, and create something new and remarkable, an integral philosophy. The breadth and depth of his work to integrate the world's knowledge into a functional and coherent system is nothing short of staggering and delightful.
Wilber's vision expands and deepens while becoming more refined with each new book, and it is clear that what he is creating is a viable blueprint for a globally and spiritually aware future for this planet and it's inhabitants. 'Sense & Soul' is a beautifully clear glimpse of this vision. I can't recommend it highly enough.
From here I would move on to 'A Brief History Of Everything' and then perhaps tackle 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality'. After that, you're on your own to cherry pick as you please.
The ideas contained within Ken Wilber's works are utterly transformative, but don't believe me, come see the future for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Well written.
Review: I am one who does not believe in the marriage of science and religion. It is true: science does allow us to discover truth, while religion does provide meaning to life. But science deals with a physical, non-human, cold-blooded world, while religion is highly connected with human sensibility, morality and purpose. The best treatment of this subject is contained in the book The Bible According to Einstein.
Rating:
Summary: A Mildly Pleasant Surprise
Review: I did not come away from this book with an extraordinarily high opinion of the author and his philosophy, but frankly it easily surpassed my quite low expectations. I had never heard of Wilber until a year or so ago, but what I'd inferred about him since then had led me to fear he was some goofy Ramtha-style New Age guru. But based on this book at least, he seems to be a fairly reasonable, sane, bright guy. Wilber spends much of the book summarizing and critiquing the philosophical, scientific, and religious ideas of various philosophers, mystics and popular movements. Does he really have a thorough grasp of all this? Or is he engaged in pseudo-intellectual name-dropping? My sense is that it's probably somewhere in between. I have considerable familiarity with some of what he discusses, a lesser familiarity with some, and no familiarity with some. In the areas where I do have knowledge, I didn't see any flagrant errors or misrepresentations. I found some of what he had to say sound and well-articulated. I'm thinking, for example, of his critiques of relativism and post-modernism. Actually, among my favorite things in the book are his frank refutations of various sacred cows of the New Age and of traditional religion. Still, I have a problem with books like this. If I have the background to critically assess parts of a work, but have to place considerable trust in the authority of the author as concerns the rest, I'd have more confidence in something that is a product of academia. When someone in academia writes a book or submits an article to a scholarly journal, there is a whole system of peer review and evaluation designed to assess its merits and weed out the crackpots. The foremost experts in a given field get to offer their critiques of your work to hammer it into shape before it's ever published and/or they publish letters and response articles. If you've misrepresented anyone's views, suppressed evidence, ignored a common counter-argument to your position, etc., it will be exposed. The system doesn't work perfectly, but it's pretty darn efficient. When you bypass all that collective wisdom to write a book aimed at the general public, you have a much better shot at becoming popular and making money, but only by evading the scrutiny of those who are in the best position to evaluate your work. I have no idea of Wilber's history or what involvement, if any, he's had or has with formal academia, but warning bells should go off whenever an outsider claims to have something valuable and insightful to say and goes straight to the public with it. People like Von Daniken and Velikovsky say a lot of things that seem quite plausible to the layman, but scientists with specialized knowledge in the relevant fields treat them as a joke. Is Wilber the philosophical equivalent of such figures? If Wilber has made profound discoveries in philosophy and science, wouldn't you expect that on the cover there would be strong praise from distinguished philosophers and scientists, rather than from the likes of Deepak Chopra? In the end, Wilber argues in favor of mysticism. As I understand it, his position is that there are some subject matters that cannot be investigated through the methods of, and with the presuppositions of, empirical, materialistic science. (For instance, you can investigate empirically what year Hitler died, but not whether he was a good or a bad man. You can investigate empirically how the various Christian dogmas arose and became accepted, but not whether in fact we have a soul that survives bodily death and goes to Heaven. You can investigate empirically how human life evolved, but not what the meaning of that life is.) But rather than treat such matters as unknowable, or worse yet treat all possible beliefs in such areas as being somehow equally justified in some relativist sense, we should, according to Wilber, use a kind of mystical or intuitive method of investigation. So it still boils down to a sort of quasi-empiricism. You don't perceive non-physical or normative truths with your five senses, but in an analogous way with some other kind of psychic or intuitive sense. I don't buy it. How can we know whether to trust this alleged psychic sense? The best Wilber comes up with is a sort of appeal to popularity. If all the people who meditate the hardest about reincarnation come away with an unshakable conviction that it's true, then we should rely on that the same way we rely on the conclusions reached by scientists using empirical data. Well, good luck finding a consensus of mystics about anything very specific. But beyond that, the analogy fails anyway. With each of our regular five senses, confirmation is not limited to the claimed perceptions of others. For one thing, we routinely have available to us the confirmatory evidence of our other senses. I hear barking and I turn to see a dog. I see a branch falling toward me and then I feel it land on my head. If I intuit some spiritual realm with the "eye of contemplation" or some such alleged mystic organ, what other sense can I use to confirm it? If anything, matters are even worse when it comes to normative claims arrived at through mysticism. Normative claims are not claims about some alleged non-physical entities or realm. They are of a different logical category entirely. What would it even mean for a mystic to intuit, for instance, that lying is wrong? It's not an empirical, descriptive claim, but nor is it some quasi-empirical descriptive claim about some non-material realm. [Please excuse this incomplete summary and inadequate critique of Wilber's views on mysticism. There is insufficient space allotted for these reviews for me to address it in a more satisfactory manner.]
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting read, but a basic misunderstanding of science.
Review: I enjoyed Wilber's writing, but his argument about the common ground between science and religion makes some assumptions about science that are just flat wrong. He draws a line between 'broad science' and 'narrow science' to support several theories including that meditation is a 'portal to the Divine'. Science makes no such distinction. Things are either verifiable, repeatable and relevant or they are not. It was a distorted presentation based on a tortured definition of what science is and is not.
|
