Rating: 
Summary: Reaching for the universe and coming up a little bit short
Review: Ken Wilber is undeniably one of the leading voices in the land today. His remarkable ability to compress disparate theories, all vying for their place in the sun, into a comprehensive and scholarly thesis is applaudable, especially if we are to narrow the ever expanding range of theoretical diversion that is fragmenting our literary landscape. Everyone, it seems, wants to stake their claim, and Wilber is no different. The Marriage of Sense and Soul is a very good summary of Wilber's thinking up to the present point. If you take your time with this book you will come away with a full understanding of his range of thought. And if nothing else, it is a scholarly synthesis of historical perspectives within his comprehensive four-quadrant scheme. But ultimately I was left with one nagging question: why should we privilege Wilber's voice more than any other? Just as the extreme postmodernists claim the world is nothing more than our idiosyncratic interpretation of it, Wilber too is proving his point within the consistency of his own theoretical base. To the thoughtful reader, Wilber systematically lays the foundation that beckons our agreement, but what I was ultimately left with was how Ken Wilber thinks more than how science and religion are part of a grand unified scheme. However, there are some good reasons to privilege Wilber's voice. There is enough substance in going through the rigors of his proof to make The Marriage of Sense and Soul invigorating and worthwhile to read. Wilber's broad knowledge base and his general understanding of religion, science, history, psychology, and spirituality, leads the reader to consider the connections among disciplines that would otherwise go unrecognized. It helped me to unify and deepen my thinking even though it did not convince me that the schism between science and religion has been reduced as a result of his efforts. Polarities, it would seem to me, are necessary for the essential tension they produce, which is then used to further define each pole. To understand this process is as essential as the poles themselves, and Wilber admirably does this, but that does not constitute a reconciliation of the opposite poles of science and religion, even if it is a brilliant thesis.
Rating: 
Summary: A brilliant synthesis of the major branches of knowledge
Review: Ken Wilber presents a brilliant synthesis of the major branches of knowledge and clearly shows their relationship to "Religion in General". It is clear from some of the reviews, which rated this book poorly, that they do not understand where Wilber is coming from. Some reviews are just too stupid to even comment upon. (Eg. granpubah) The Kirkus review states that Wilber doesn't explain how the integration of the Great Chain of Being with the major differientiations of modernity is supposed to occur. I can't follow this line of reasoning as Wilber has clearly shown how this can be achieved. I do agree, however, that Wilber does not tackle the old epistemological question of the relation of consciousness/mind to matter, although he does touch on this question in pages 145-147. The philosopher Rudolf Steiner did an excellent job in solving this problem from an introspective point of view in his books "Truth & Knowledge" and the "Philosophy of Freedom". (No I am not an Anthroposophist!) Basically, Wilber tackles the problem of the unification of knowledge from an external perspective and clearly defines what he means by empiricism (observation/experiment) and knowledge (understanding of experience). These terms are not loosely equated as implied in the Kirkus review, far from it. Wilber also defines what he means by religion in a very precise manner, ie. religion is at its core, "direct mystical, transendental, meditative, contemplative, or yogic experiences". What else could it be? Virgin births or 'crossing the Red Sea' are unsubstantiated beliefs which have grown around religion. These myths may have symbolic meaning but they were not real events. The criticism that Wilber makes vague generalisations about the scientific method are unfounded and way of the mark. (Kirkus) He very precisely defines the scientific method as having three basic strands. To paraphrase him they are: experimental practice, collection of data and the confirmation or rejection of results. Again what else could it be? I don't recall Wilber stating that the deeply religous and deeply scientific feel a strong need to integrate science and religion (Charles Stout review) Wilber's view could not be termed manipulative by any stretch of the imagination as claimed. He asks only that science broaden its focus and religion identify its core essence. If this is done then the scientific method can be applied to an analysis of "inner experience". Phenomenological tests could then establish the consistency, or otherwise, of inner structures reported by subjects experienced in the art of meditation. The word science is derived from an old Latin word scire, meaning 'to know', and as Wilber states all knowledge is based on experience, whether inner or outer. There is no science apart from conscious observers and sometimes this fact is easily forgotten. Consciousness, and what we call matter, are inextricably linked together and one cannot be reduced to the other. This, I believe, is the essence of Wilber's argument.
Rating:
Summary: Science vs. Religion? Why must it be so?
Review: Ken Wilbur has got to be one of the smartest authors that I've come across. While a good portion of this book was a bit over my head, I did come away with a good understanding of his major point. It is important for modern society and science to accept the reality of spirituality and this will not happen if science continues to categorize anything without hard evidence to support it as nonsence.
Rating:
Summary: Science vs. Religion? Why must it be so?
Review: Ken Wilbur has got to be one of the smartest authors that I've come across. While a good portion of this book was a bit over my head, I did come away with a good understanding of his major point. It is important for modern society and science to accept the reality of spirituality and this will not happen if science continues to categorize anything without hard evidence to support it as nonsence.
Rating:
Summary: It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!
Review: Ken Wilbur is very serious and precise on taking up this task of integrating science and religion. The first part of the book examines where philosophical thought has come on the matter and why all previous attempts at the great integration of the Kosmos have failed. For a while I was just skimming and questioned whether his work would have any real value. Boy, I was wrong. Some might question how you could ever unite such differing areas of thought. Well that's where he gets into "real" science and "real" religion, not their bogus baggage. For any of this to be possible, Ken says, they will both have to give up a little. With science, it must be realized that it is not equal and limited to sensory empiricism. (And if one denies that they are invited to consider mathematics and logic) Religion must in turn set aside mythic dogma. What this means is that real religion is not Moses parting the red sea or not, but rather uniting with 'God.' Of course, even this first step will not be satisfactory to all and I'm not quite sure if he realizes this. The baggage of the two has its own baggage, the die hard adherents: the materialist nihilists, and the fundamentalist historicists of religion. I suppose the only answer is that they are as well bogus scientists and brethren. But once he sheds off the corners of the two and broadens their perspectives on the Kosmos, they look more and more alike in finding the Ultimate Reality in what starts to also look alot like mysticism. Once at this point, we see the monism that is better discussed in the last book I read, "God's Whisper: Creation's Thunder." I think that the only hope for fully finishing his grand proposal is the harmony of science and religion found in the teachings of the Baha'i faith. If only more people would think like him. (and me) Its not really going to matter whether Jesus could walk on water when following the true divine message under religion and the Kosmos, and reaching back home to God's unity. When you finish this..pick up 'God's Whisper: Creation's Thunder' Perhaps we all need take a look into the words of `Abdu'l-Baha: "Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."
Rating: 
Summary: if you can't say anything nice. . .
Review: mom always told us that if we couldn't say anything nice about something, then just don't say anything at all, but we just can't help ourselves here. this book was friggin horrible. i have just three words to describe it: redundant, redundant, redundant. now i don't claim to be any sort of book critic or spiritual philosopher, but i beleive that i can tell the difference between a ripe horse apple and a good book, and the marriage of sense and soul is a horse apple ripe for the chukkin. if you value your time on earth, do not read it.
Rating:
Summary: A UNIQUE STUDY OF WESTERN PROBLEMS.
Review: The authors philosophical writing is almost poetical in it's clarity of expression, and also on target as he dissects the blundering history of western civilizations submission to technology & a fragmented science. A very unhealthy situation for us all. Although Mr. Wilber does provide some vague solutions, such as Yoga, he does not elaborate extensively upon this matter as it would take another book to do so. No doubt the author has touched upon these subjects elsewhere. If Yoga itself is the "science of religion", what then is the religion of science? For a more complete solution to answer this dilemma for those who are truly interested in pursuing this kind of philosophy in a life changing way, I highly recommend reading the "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI " by Paramahansa Yogananda (orange cover) From Self-realization Publishers, via Amazon books
Rating:
Summary: AN EXCELLENT SUMMATION OF WILBER'S PHILOSOPHY
Review: The few negative reviews seem to be from some who have not read Wiber's other works, of which Science and Religion is a summation that often refers to the others for more details. Clearly, a quick read of S & R will seem "vague" or lacking in detail. However, for those with open minds, it presents a brilliant overview of what ails society (that's us) and what can be done about it. Having read Teilhard de Chardin in the sixties (who Wilber refers to), I believe Wilber has pointed to the moon, and the way to go.
Rating:
Summary: False premises. Tortured defintions. Unenlightening.
Review: The premise that the deeply religious (those with deep beliefs in specific religions) and deeply scientific (those tied to scientific method as opposed to specific theories) either feel a strong need to integrate these aspects of their lives or would be willing to give up "truths" in order to do so is more debatable than, as Wilber claims, arguable. To buttress his argument for integration of religion and science, he draws a straw man definition of each -- neither of which is acceptable to respective practitioners -- then predictably tears these definitions down. The philosophical window dressing he employs indicates that he has read (or skimmed) much critical literature (exposing the surfaces of science and religion), but he clearly does not understand the practices and tenets of them (the deeper meanings). A perplexingly manipulative and unenlightening read.
Rating:
Summary: A Reflective Work of Genuine Worth
Review: The unique aspect of Marriage of Sense and Soul for me is the literate and informed conversation Wilber has with the great thematic works of the West. His reflective appreciation of Kant's three critiques and the centrality Kant's efforts have in Wilber's overall reflection was refreshing. It is in my mind a touchstone of serious consideration to engage, in a 'meaty' way, with central themes that were, by some's analysis, definitively defined by Kant in his critiques. Wilber's subsequent tracing of that thematic line up through Habermaus was again reassuring of the seriousness of his consideration. So many of "New Age" authors, while creative and personally helpful, seem deaf to the serious reflections within their own lebenswelt that not only display similar interests, but substantive contributions. So, having proven himself conversant with "his" lebenswelt, the introduction of Eastern themes of similar parentage was enlightening. This recognition of familial roots generates, in my mind, a convergence of the two streams, and give Wilber's work it's truly reflective deepth. What some readers measured as difficulty, I would suggest is the work's reflective depth echoing against our own shallowness.
|
