What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of Everything
A
Brief History of Everything
is an altogether friendly and accessible account of men and women's place in a
universe of sex, soul, and spirit, written by an author of whom
New
York Times
reporter
Tony Schwartz "No one has described the path to wisdom better than
Ken Wilber."
Wilber
examines the course of evolution as the unfolding manifestation of Spirit, from
matter to life to mind, including the higher stages of spiritual development
where Spirit becomes conscious of itself. In each of these domains, there are
recurring patterns, and by looking closely at them, we can learn much about the
predicament of our world—and the direction we must take if "global
transformation" is to become a reality.
Wilber
offers a series of striking and original views on many topics of current
interest and controversy, including the gender wars, modern liberation
movements, multiculturalism, ecology and environmental ethics, and the conflict
between this-worldly and otherworldly approaches to spirituality. The result is
an extraordinary and exhilarating ride through the Kosmos in the company of one
of the great thinkers of our time.
579 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1996
993 people are currently reading
9451 people want to read
About the author
Ken Wilber
220 books1,222 followersKenneth Earl Wilber II is an American philosopher and writer on transpersonal psychology and his own integral theory, a systematic philosophy which suggests the synthesis of all human knowledge and experience.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 348 reviews
September 19, 2007
Here's how Ken Wilbur would write "Three Blind Mice"
Three decrepit rodents
Three decrepit rodents
Observe how they motivate
Observe how they motivate
They motivate after the agricultural spouse
Who severed their rears with the culinary shears
Have you ever witnessed such a deplorable condition
As Three decrepit rodents.
point being... way too complicated a way to express the simplest concepts.
He's just making himself feel smart or something. V weird.
Three decrepit rodents
Three decrepit rodents
Observe how they motivate
Observe how they motivate
They motivate after the agricultural spouse
Who severed their rears with the culinary shears
Have you ever witnessed such a deplorable condition
As Three decrepit rodents.
point being... way too complicated a way to express the simplest concepts.
He's just making himself feel smart or something. V weird.
May 28, 2012
(This review was an entry on my blog.)
I was first exposed to Ken Wilber when I found his book, A Brief History of Everything, on my Dad’s bookshelf. (I am always attracted to bookshelves.) My Dad didn’t have much to say about the book except that I could take it. He told me that it was a selection of the Mira Costa College book group that met monthly to discuss their selections and vote upon others.
The book sat on my shelf for a couple years while I attempted to start reading it four or five times. Finally I worked up enough momentum in the book that I started to make progress and then suddenly I was hooked. I studied it very carefully and started to really enjoy it. By the time I finished this book I knew I had to know more about this guy.
Ken Wilber is another one of those rare human beings that have had a significant impact in shaping the way I think. Although he seems new agey at first, seems narcissistic at times, and sometimes dresses funny, I still enjoy all his quirky oddness without feeling the need to emulate him in every way or become taken in by his “fan club-cum-cult.” He appears a bit eccentric but, hey, the guy is truly one of life’s originals and he is full of substantive ideas.
I highly recommend one of his books: A Brief History of Everything, and his audio set: Kosmic Consciousness which covers the same material in an interview format. The combination of book and CDs is most effective as each medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses; together they best introduce Wilber’s worldview. Beyond these two recommended works of Ken Wilber I make no further recommendations though there are still many wonderful intellectual nuggets to find. I have purchased most of Wilber’s books but that is more a reflection of my way of sizing him up. I do the same thing with musical artists as well. I like to know the full catalogue even when I only like part of it. I like to understand the artist as well as his message.
One reason why I have formed an intellectual bond with Ken Wilber is because he was the one that I was reading when I had a few more of those “aha” moments. Wilber taught me a few new things that I really found enlightening. Granted, I could have had such moments while reading somebody else because most ideas are not exclusively original to any one human being, but the fact is I was taught by Wilber. He was the one who communicated many ideas in such a way that I was able to receive them, and they came at I time in life when I was mature enough to pay attention.
The first topic that impacted my thinking was emergence--everything is simultaneously a “whole” as well as a “part” of something bigger (holons). Subatomic particles are wholes, but also parts of Atoms. Atoms are discrete wholes yet they are parts of molecules. Molecules are wholes that form parts of proteins which become parts of tissues, then organs, then organisms, then the biosphere, then the noosphere (see Pierre Teilhard de Chardin). The “aha” was the realization that I am part of something bigger than myself. I was finally ready to trade up to this broader perspective by giving up my more egocentric worldview and it was not a frightening thought but, surprisingly, it was very comfortable. I kept repeating in my mind, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This seemed very logical. I started to think of other people as extensions of myself, or, even, myself. This may sound loony but I honestly started to sense a keener kinship to the world than I ever had before.
I was very impressed that Wilber seemed to have genuine affection and acceptance of people and institutions at all levels of development instead of a vitriolic disdain for other points of view that I had been somehow conditioned to expect from intellectual types. This attitude came from Hinduism through Wilber to me. And after a while I found that I was experiencing a real change in myself, I quite naturally developed a greater ability to detach myself from emotional issues and try to understand them more objectively while all the time believing that in the long run the “truth will out.”
Perhaps the most important idea that I got from Wilber is that I do not have to repudiate things that I transcend; I can transcend AND include.
Ken Wilber is another kindred soul because I see part of myself in him. He is a tireless quester of truth and is not afraid to read all of the world’s best books without waiting for them to be assigned. And although he is ahead of me and different in many ways, we are both questers.
I was first exposed to Ken Wilber when I found his book, A Brief History of Everything, on my Dad’s bookshelf. (I am always attracted to bookshelves.) My Dad didn’t have much to say about the book except that I could take it. He told me that it was a selection of the Mira Costa College book group that met monthly to discuss their selections and vote upon others.
The book sat on my shelf for a couple years while I attempted to start reading it four or five times. Finally I worked up enough momentum in the book that I started to make progress and then suddenly I was hooked. I studied it very carefully and started to really enjoy it. By the time I finished this book I knew I had to know more about this guy.
Ken Wilber is another one of those rare human beings that have had a significant impact in shaping the way I think. Although he seems new agey at first, seems narcissistic at times, and sometimes dresses funny, I still enjoy all his quirky oddness without feeling the need to emulate him in every way or become taken in by his “fan club-cum-cult.” He appears a bit eccentric but, hey, the guy is truly one of life’s originals and he is full of substantive ideas.
I highly recommend one of his books: A Brief History of Everything, and his audio set: Kosmic Consciousness which covers the same material in an interview format. The combination of book and CDs is most effective as each medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses; together they best introduce Wilber’s worldview. Beyond these two recommended works of Ken Wilber I make no further recommendations though there are still many wonderful intellectual nuggets to find. I have purchased most of Wilber’s books but that is more a reflection of my way of sizing him up. I do the same thing with musical artists as well. I like to know the full catalogue even when I only like part of it. I like to understand the artist as well as his message.
One reason why I have formed an intellectual bond with Ken Wilber is because he was the one that I was reading when I had a few more of those “aha” moments. Wilber taught me a few new things that I really found enlightening. Granted, I could have had such moments while reading somebody else because most ideas are not exclusively original to any one human being, but the fact is I was taught by Wilber. He was the one who communicated many ideas in such a way that I was able to receive them, and they came at I time in life when I was mature enough to pay attention.
The first topic that impacted my thinking was emergence--everything is simultaneously a “whole” as well as a “part” of something bigger (holons). Subatomic particles are wholes, but also parts of Atoms. Atoms are discrete wholes yet they are parts of molecules. Molecules are wholes that form parts of proteins which become parts of tissues, then organs, then organisms, then the biosphere, then the noosphere (see Pierre Teilhard de Chardin). The “aha” was the realization that I am part of something bigger than myself. I was finally ready to trade up to this broader perspective by giving up my more egocentric worldview and it was not a frightening thought but, surprisingly, it was very comfortable. I kept repeating in my mind, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This seemed very logical. I started to think of other people as extensions of myself, or, even, myself. This may sound loony but I honestly started to sense a keener kinship to the world than I ever had before.
I was very impressed that Wilber seemed to have genuine affection and acceptance of people and institutions at all levels of development instead of a vitriolic disdain for other points of view that I had been somehow conditioned to expect from intellectual types. This attitude came from Hinduism through Wilber to me. And after a while I found that I was experiencing a real change in myself, I quite naturally developed a greater ability to detach myself from emotional issues and try to understand them more objectively while all the time believing that in the long run the “truth will out.”
Perhaps the most important idea that I got from Wilber is that I do not have to repudiate things that I transcend; I can transcend AND include.
Ken Wilber is another kindred soul because I see part of myself in him. He is a tireless quester of truth and is not afraid to read all of the world’s best books without waiting for them to be assigned. And although he is ahead of me and different in many ways, we are both questers.
Want to read
December 1, 2008I just accidently dropped this book in the toilet so it may be a while before I get around to picking it up again.
September 2, 2016
This book is hard to review, really the rating is the mean between a 5 and a 1. Wilber is basically a self-taught philosopher who tries to articulate a theory of everything. By working outside the limits of academia, he doesn't have to specialize as much as other intellectuals. In this sense, his broad focus is refreshing and intriguing. Writing about consciousness, I appreciated the case he made for being able to look both at an individual's interior experience as well as looking at an individual from an objective, more empirical perspective. However, what is lost by working outside academia, is the fact that the work hasn't been peer-reviewed. It wasn't written to scholarly standards (he says this 600 page book is basically the cliff-notes from a larger book), nor critiqued by a veteran in the field. So, there are times when it doesn't appear he has mastery over subject matter that he writes about in an authoritative tone. Bottom line, it's an interesting book and worth a read, but only with a healthy dose of skepticism.
February 12, 2008
The book begins with the premise that gender differences arose because women who participated in vigorous activities had a high rate of miscarriage. This is either: misogynous, naive, or stupid.
There needs to be a category for books "that I can't stand to finish."
There needs to be a category for books "that I can't stand to finish."
February 29, 2008
Crap. An astonishingly deluded or mendacious philosopher attempting to integrate science and mysticism into one coherent world view, with the rather predictable result of abject failure.
February 11, 2013
I'm not kidding - this may be the best book I've ever read. It is the first book (of many, I hope) of Wilber's that I've read. It was recommended by someone I respect implicitly, and it did not disappoint. I wasn't predisposed to love it, mind you - his stance on Jung, his focus on Western Philosophers, his nearly constant criticism of ecophilosophers and ecofeminists to name a few things were all things that I don't particularly agree with, but I think his criticisms are valid and have place. This book fit all my interests and all the things that I find importnat together in a way that I'd been looking for, but had been previously unable to do. One word to describe it is this: essential. It is, in my opinion, THE essential book for understanding so many of the problems and crises that are facing us as humans and for understanding, quite literally, life, the universe and everything. I recommend it to all of my transcendentalist friends. Thank you, sir. You have won a student.
February 1, 2012
It was weird. This month I read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and it referenced Arthur Koestler's writings on evolution, so I decided it was high time to read Darkness at Noon, then I find out that Koestler is the one who coined the term Holon, so I dug out Wilber. I read a little Wilber in college, but never finished the book. So, I read it today and liked it in parts. My main complaint with Wilber is he tries to square the corners of the Kosmos too neatly. I find him simultaneously empty and shiny; trite and compelling. Do I regret reading this book? No, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to re-orient my worldview or integrate much of Wilber into my own spirituality.
June 9, 2010
A synopsis of his much more lengthy writing about why science, religion (and spirituality), sociology and psychology are not at odds with each other. If I could make everyone on earth read one book, this would be it.
March 15, 2010
How does a Seeker of knowledge download 2,000 plus years of human history in a few days of reading? Easy. Read or listen to Ken Wilber's brilliant synopsis neatly packaged into an elegant model of everything. The "Integral Model" will change the way you view your own life challenges and the world's enormous geopolitical problems forever. I highly recommend this book and think every politician and college student in America should have this book in their collection.
December 4, 2007
Dude is a genius (of the narcissistic variety - aren't they usually?). This book is sometimes hard to read, especially when he tries to reference everything under the sun. For those of us who don't know everything, the references become too much - looking every person and theory referenced would be like dissertation research. However, this relatively early (in Wilber's bio, that is) attempt at an umbrella theory of various aspects of life (psychology, spirituality, scientific discovery, etc.) is actually quite compelling. Narcissism notwithstanding, Wilber has clearly done his research and offers a challenging and unique read.
November 21, 2018
Интересная философия с небанальными мыслями о духовном развитии, актуальных проблемах экологии, равноправия. Немного чуть более пространные рассуждения, чем могли бы быть, так как книга написана в формате диалога.
August 19, 2011
This book put all the conflicting theories of philosophy, psychology, and religion that I had studied and contemplated for fifteen or twenty years into a single usable context.
August 2, 2011
In addressing cosmic, biological, human and divine evolution, Ken Wilber impressively populates 500 pages worth of synthesis of Western and Non-Western spiritual tradition creating a thinking framework for everything in life. Wilber comprehensively dissects and re-assembles the parts and wholes of the ontology, epistemology and methodology for what he has coined as“integral theory”.
It feels like an impossible task to synthesize this reading into a meaningful review and make “A Brief History of Everything” even briefer. Wilber’s work addresses the evolution of consciousness from its basic building blocks to the complexity of concepts such as worldviews. Topics covered include gender, self, society, eco issues, liberation movements, psychological development and pathologies and a wide array of approaches to spirituality and evolution are all covered through the perspective of his theories. An extract from his discourse on worldviews provides an example of how topics are discussed within his framework:
“Different worldviews create different worlds, enact different worlds, they aren’t just the same world seen differently [....] As the higher stages of consciousness emerge and develop, they themselves include the basic components of the earlier worldview, then add their own new and more differentiated perceptions. They transcend and include. Because they are more inclusive they are more adequate. So it’s not that the earlier worldview was totally wrong and the new worldview is totally right. The earlier one was adequate, the new one is more adequate. If it’s not more adequate, then it won’t be selected by evolution [....] The solution of an old problem is the creation of a new one - they come into being together, although the new problems usually surface only as the worldview approaches its demise [...] And we are at the point where the mental, industrial world view are running into grave problems inherent in its own organization. We have run up against our own limitations”
At times the text can be lengthy and repetitive, though it becomes progressively more clear through the work that the re-iteration of ideas and examples assist the reader’s hermeneutic process of developing understanding between parts and wholes. Wilber is sensitive to what is required from the reader to be able to keep up with high-concept content; he tries to make it as accessible as possible. Both the repetition of concepts and “question-and-answer” (Socratic dialogue) format of the text facilitate the readers consciousness of the content as it gradually evolves from detailed concepts to a big picture perspective.
Personally, I found parts of the text still had a strong sense of New Age tone to it, but the satisfaction I found in building a framework of contextual meaning from this read by far outweighed the intonation issues I felt. I also would add that I admire how Wilber’s research of Western and Eastern philosophies is an excellent precedent for a hermeneutic research approach. He has created a theoretical “Bricolage” to use Levi-Strauss’ metaphor, which I have found very useful to use as a backdrop for my own research and theoretical development.
Big Idea
At the core of Wilber’s work and the ontological base for the integral theory is the four quadrant composition of interrelating domains of manifested reality. The four quadrants represent the interior and exterior of the individual and the collective. Within each of these quadrants are levels of development and transcendence. Taking into account “all quadrants” and “all levels” is key in integral theory as a way to continue developing and transcending. His examples illustrate how integral thinking can be applied to bridge gaps and allow pattern recognition in life.
Useful learning outcomes and applications for designers
The work by Wilber is especially relevant from a design education perspective as it provides a way of figuring out “how can we learn what we need?” This is a question that not only applies to what we do as designers, but also addresses questions of how we define our own discipline in the 21st Century .
Design deals with humans on the interior and exterior of both the individual and collective. It requires a deep and wide understanding of contextual framework in order to develop products, systems and human interfaces that take into account matter (cosmos), life (biosphere) and mind (noosphere). The book can help bridge gaps, show interconnections and relate the scientific to the inner world.
As a discipline, design germinated in an industrial era worldview and has suffered directly as this era is revealing its limitations and inadequacies. The design discipline is in a phase of development and transcendence and Wilber’s work can inform, motivate and facilitate the struggles of this required evolution of our practice.
What people are saying
"In the ambitiously titled A Brief History of Everything, Wilber continues his search for the primary patterns that manifest in all realms of existence. Like Hegel in the West and Aurobindo in the East, Wilber is a thinker in the grand systematic tradition, an intellectual adventurer concerned with nothing less than the whole course of evolution, life's ultimate trajectory—in a word, everything. . . . Combining spiritual sensitivity with enormous intellectual understanding and a style of elegance and clarity, A Brief History of Everything is a clarion call for seeing the world as a whole, much at odds with the depressing reductionism of trendy Foucault-derivative academic philosophy."—San Francisco Chronicle
Recommended reading extensions that compliment this book
Book: “Blessed Unrest” by Paul Hawken - “Emerson’s Savants”
Documentary: “The World Peace Game and other fourth grade achievements”/ John Hunter
Book: “Alone Together” by Sherry Turkle
Documentary: “Manufactured Landscapes” by Edward Burtinsky
Rudolph Steiner’s lectures
Short Story: “How I spent my summer vacation: History, Story and the Kant of Authenticity” by Thomas King
It feels like an impossible task to synthesize this reading into a meaningful review and make “A Brief History of Everything” even briefer. Wilber’s work addresses the evolution of consciousness from its basic building blocks to the complexity of concepts such as worldviews. Topics covered include gender, self, society, eco issues, liberation movements, psychological development and pathologies and a wide array of approaches to spirituality and evolution are all covered through the perspective of his theories. An extract from his discourse on worldviews provides an example of how topics are discussed within his framework:
“Different worldviews create different worlds, enact different worlds, they aren’t just the same world seen differently [....] As the higher stages of consciousness emerge and develop, they themselves include the basic components of the earlier worldview, then add their own new and more differentiated perceptions. They transcend and include. Because they are more inclusive they are more adequate. So it’s not that the earlier worldview was totally wrong and the new worldview is totally right. The earlier one was adequate, the new one is more adequate. If it’s not more adequate, then it won’t be selected by evolution [....] The solution of an old problem is the creation of a new one - they come into being together, although the new problems usually surface only as the worldview approaches its demise [...] And we are at the point where the mental, industrial world view are running into grave problems inherent in its own organization. We have run up against our own limitations”
At times the text can be lengthy and repetitive, though it becomes progressively more clear through the work that the re-iteration of ideas and examples assist the reader’s hermeneutic process of developing understanding between parts and wholes. Wilber is sensitive to what is required from the reader to be able to keep up with high-concept content; he tries to make it as accessible as possible. Both the repetition of concepts and “question-and-answer” (Socratic dialogue) format of the text facilitate the readers consciousness of the content as it gradually evolves from detailed concepts to a big picture perspective.
Personally, I found parts of the text still had a strong sense of New Age tone to it, but the satisfaction I found in building a framework of contextual meaning from this read by far outweighed the intonation issues I felt. I also would add that I admire how Wilber’s research of Western and Eastern philosophies is an excellent precedent for a hermeneutic research approach. He has created a theoretical “Bricolage” to use Levi-Strauss’ metaphor, which I have found very useful to use as a backdrop for my own research and theoretical development.
Big Idea
At the core of Wilber’s work and the ontological base for the integral theory is the four quadrant composition of interrelating domains of manifested reality. The four quadrants represent the interior and exterior of the individual and the collective. Within each of these quadrants are levels of development and transcendence. Taking into account “all quadrants” and “all levels” is key in integral theory as a way to continue developing and transcending. His examples illustrate how integral thinking can be applied to bridge gaps and allow pattern recognition in life.
Useful learning outcomes and applications for designers
The work by Wilber is especially relevant from a design education perspective as it provides a way of figuring out “how can we learn what we need?” This is a question that not only applies to what we do as designers, but also addresses questions of how we define our own discipline in the 21st Century .
Design deals with humans on the interior and exterior of both the individual and collective. It requires a deep and wide understanding of contextual framework in order to develop products, systems and human interfaces that take into account matter (cosmos), life (biosphere) and mind (noosphere). The book can help bridge gaps, show interconnections and relate the scientific to the inner world.
As a discipline, design germinated in an industrial era worldview and has suffered directly as this era is revealing its limitations and inadequacies. The design discipline is in a phase of development and transcendence and Wilber’s work can inform, motivate and facilitate the struggles of this required evolution of our practice.
What people are saying
"In the ambitiously titled A Brief History of Everything, Wilber continues his search for the primary patterns that manifest in all realms of existence. Like Hegel in the West and Aurobindo in the East, Wilber is a thinker in the grand systematic tradition, an intellectual adventurer concerned with nothing less than the whole course of evolution, life's ultimate trajectory—in a word, everything. . . . Combining spiritual sensitivity with enormous intellectual understanding and a style of elegance and clarity, A Brief History of Everything is a clarion call for seeing the world as a whole, much at odds with the depressing reductionism of trendy Foucault-derivative academic philosophy."—San Francisco Chronicle
Recommended reading extensions that compliment this book
Book: “Blessed Unrest” by Paul Hawken - “Emerson’s Savants”
Documentary: “The World Peace Game and other fourth grade achievements”/ John Hunter
Book: “Alone Together” by Sherry Turkle
Documentary: “Manufactured Landscapes” by Edward Burtinsky
Rudolph Steiner’s lectures
Short Story: “How I spent my summer vacation: History, Story and the Kant of Authenticity” by Thomas King
October 21, 2009
More then anything else about this book, I appreciate what Wilber is attempting to do with his integration of Eastern and Western philosophies. I am doubtful of little and disagree with even less in this book. Most of my criticism of this book are stylistic. Foremost, is Wilber’s tone tends towards the pedantic, didactic, and patronising, which can be grating. Once I got past this I found this book more interesting and useful, specifically the second half (the first half deals more with developmental psychology and psychology I find quickly boring). Wilber, like many philosophers, also tends to over-simplify and get repetitive. I fear he over-simplified his criticism of neo-Goddess movements to fit his paradigm. Graves, a major modern proponent of the Goddess, at least, never ignored the human sacrifices of horticultural/Goddess worshipping societies (Graves felt it was a small price to pay to sacrifice the King once every ten years to avoid all the other meaningless deaths that come from patriarchal society). However, Wilber’s other criticism of regressive primitive movements I do agree with. I think Wilber also made the same mistake as Jung of overestimating psychological well-being and development in solving the worlds problems. Psychological development will not stop a fascistic politico-economic elite from continuing to destroy our planet in their own interests. Wilber’s ability to integrate various schools of thought and synthesize them usefully is his strength.
October 4, 2019
This is the most important book I've read this year. A part of me wishes I'd picked it up as suggested years ago - I have a friend who first introduced me to the term integral theory back in the 90s. But then I wouldn't have had the experience I just did - which is to see nearly everything I've studied in the past decade summarized here and placed in an overall framework. The thing is, Wilber is only sending us both out and in to everything we've always had available. Yes, all is a manifestation of God or Spirit or Emptiness (words are only language for deeper meaning) but that doesn't mean we can opt out of living. All the more reason we must engage in the world of form to realize the ultimate in all things. We don't escape into spirituality or work or anything that neglects a part of reality. We embrace it all. And that's not an easy route. That's facing reality at its most fundamental in all parts of your life. The areas you're (and WE as humanity) are trying to avoid the most are exactly the ones you/we need to deal with and engage. But there's obviously great hope too, his vision of the universe is of ultimate goodness (much as Islam or any great wisdom tradition teaches - love is the driving force of manifestation or creation) - that through this engagement we come to the ultimate transformation, wisdom and happiness.
He's not saying anything here that the mystics or the esoteric strain of any great tradition haven't already taught, nor does he contradict them. He follows that mystical strain to its logical conclusion by showing just how the pattern of unfolding or unveiling (that Ibn Al-Arabi for example has articulated so well) is consistent in everything up to and through the present day. It doesn't matter the area we choose, the laws or rules of unfolding, immanence and transcendence are the same. And his spirituality is practiced, realized, verifiable internally if we're willing to try it.
His four quadrants cover the ground of our lived experience as a human being - both internal and external and it simply opens up a further lifetime of study and most importantly practice that only partakes in the best of all knowledge. That's the value I see in this - he's only encouraging you to embrace everything you've already been applying to your life - in any field and then add to it from the parts you're neglecting - that includes both the parts that bring joy and the darkest regions that we need to heal and transform. Integral. Holistic. Truly all embracing. That's the only way to transcend and transform. Because all is a manifestation of Spirit and all comes from ultimate wisdom.
He's not saying anything here that the mystics or the esoteric strain of any great tradition haven't already taught, nor does he contradict them. He follows that mystical strain to its logical conclusion by showing just how the pattern of unfolding or unveiling (that Ibn Al-Arabi for example has articulated so well) is consistent in everything up to and through the present day. It doesn't matter the area we choose, the laws or rules of unfolding, immanence and transcendence are the same. And his spirituality is practiced, realized, verifiable internally if we're willing to try it.
His four quadrants cover the ground of our lived experience as a human being - both internal and external and it simply opens up a further lifetime of study and most importantly practice that only partakes in the best of all knowledge. That's the value I see in this - he's only encouraging you to embrace everything you've already been applying to your life - in any field and then add to it from the parts you're neglecting - that includes both the parts that bring joy and the darkest regions that we need to heal and transform. Integral. Holistic. Truly all embracing. That's the only way to transcend and transform. Because all is a manifestation of Spirit and all comes from ultimate wisdom.
October 15, 2015
A mélange of genuinely interesting ideas and utter nonsense, Wilber's "Brief History" should at least do you the favor of telling you whether it's worth diving into the magnum opus it ostensibly summarizes, namely "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution."
Wilber is famous (or infamous) for his wide-ranging, syncretic treatment of "integral philosophy," and his frequent name dropping of all the work he's reviewed will either impress you, intimidate you, or make you wonder how carefully he could have possibly read it. For a book that summarizes a thesis with "evolution" in the title, Wilber's work shows a disturbing and fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory while also implying that he is accurately representing current thought in the field. On evolution, Wilber simply does not know what he is talking about, which makes wading through the rest of this often pedantic (but occasionally entertaining) book much more work than it was worth to me, since I simply didn't trust his scholarship.
Wilber is famous (or infamous) for his wide-ranging, syncretic treatment of "integral philosophy," and his frequent name dropping of all the work he's reviewed will either impress you, intimidate you, or make you wonder how carefully he could have possibly read it. For a book that summarizes a thesis with "evolution" in the title, Wilber's work shows a disturbing and fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory while also implying that he is accurately representing current thought in the field. On evolution, Wilber simply does not know what he is talking about, which makes wading through the rest of this often pedantic (but occasionally entertaining) book much more work than it was worth to me, since I simply didn't trust his scholarship.
May 12, 2008
How do you write sensibly about a book that makes no sense and, in fact, tries to make you question everything you've always thought was true?
June 20, 2008
Wilber at his pompous and condescending worst. The title and cover say it all. This book is pretty much and advertisement for all his other books. Some of which ARE worth reading, just not this one.
August 4, 2008
Ken Wilber is an incredible intellectual and author. He is a great source for those of us who enjoy exploring the crossroads between philosophy, science, and spirituality.
December 20, 2023
mind-expanding, eye-opening, spiritual
May 28, 2019
Well, the title is correct. In this book, Wilber seems to give a history of everything! From the beginning on through to today, he builds a story of the universe. But it’s not a “history” as much as a philosophy/spirituality book. Overall, I found it a mix of good and bad.
The best was Wilber’s quadrant that truly does explain so much. On the upper left you have the interior individual, the usual “spiritual” stuff. Upper right is the exterior things like biology. Lower left are all the cultural forces that shape you. Finally, lower right is the exterior systems. Wilber excels in showing how you need all four. When you only have the exterior, as in much modern mindsets, you reduce everything to mere physical. Wilber’s critique of the idea that science is everything is worth the price of the book. But if you only have the interior, then you discount the physical world and live only in your head.
There’s other good in here. But I found Wilber’s creation of words and concepts tedious. Maybe it’s my Christian faith, but his invented words just seemed empty. Give me a deeper religion, whether Christianity or anything. It seems in trying to create a theory of everything, he waters down what people actually do. There’s not really practice here. Would a practicing Muslim or Buddhist or Christian see much here? I guess that’s not a fault, Wilber’s offering a theory of ”everything”. To do that means generalizing. Such generalizing ends up being a bit esoteric and academic, which isn’t a fault in itself. It’s just...if we’re talking about spirituality, when do we discuss what real people actually do and believe? Wilber does offer a sort of stages of faith, with nine steps, echoing Fowler and Erickson. I found much of what he said here helpful too. I guess I can’t put my finger on it...this book never really hit me deeply. It was interesting but not inspiring. To be fair, maybe he wasn’t going for inspiring.
I also hate the dialogue format! Why am I reading so many books in dialogue format!!!
If you’re into religion and philosophy and psychology and spirituality, this book is worth your time. There’s stuff her to chew on. But after a while it’s tedious.
The best was Wilber’s quadrant that truly does explain so much. On the upper left you have the interior individual, the usual “spiritual” stuff. Upper right is the exterior things like biology. Lower left are all the cultural forces that shape you. Finally, lower right is the exterior systems. Wilber excels in showing how you need all four. When you only have the exterior, as in much modern mindsets, you reduce everything to mere physical. Wilber’s critique of the idea that science is everything is worth the price of the book. But if you only have the interior, then you discount the physical world and live only in your head.
There’s other good in here. But I found Wilber’s creation of words and concepts tedious. Maybe it’s my Christian faith, but his invented words just seemed empty. Give me a deeper religion, whether Christianity or anything. It seems in trying to create a theory of everything, he waters down what people actually do. There’s not really practice here. Would a practicing Muslim or Buddhist or Christian see much here? I guess that’s not a fault, Wilber’s offering a theory of ”everything”. To do that means generalizing. Such generalizing ends up being a bit esoteric and academic, which isn’t a fault in itself. It’s just...if we’re talking about spirituality, when do we discuss what real people actually do and believe? Wilber does offer a sort of stages of faith, with nine steps, echoing Fowler and Erickson. I found much of what he said here helpful too. I guess I can’t put my finger on it...this book never really hit me deeply. It was interesting but not inspiring. To be fair, maybe he wasn’t going for inspiring.
I also hate the dialogue format! Why am I reading so many books in dialogue format!!!
If you’re into religion and philosophy and psychology and spirituality, this book is worth your time. There’s stuff her to chew on. But after a while it’s tedious.
April 30, 2010
Where to start with this one? It takes some time but it is worth it. I believe there was some sort of portal that quietly opened up in the collective unconscious in the 90s and books like this were written. Some of us were ready for a kind of pragmatic spirituality and I believe more of us are every day, if on a much more unconscious level. This book is as cerebral as it is mystical...that last word is a bit of a dirty one for most of us, myself included, but if we are totally honest with ourselves, much of what we dismiss as "mystical nonsense" is absolutely valid and absolutely connected with what we accept as "reality". This book is largely about the failure of the modern and post-modern paradigms and the need for a trans-rational or post-rational model. We've rationalized ourselves into a corner, peoples...when all else fails, you must look at the truth.
January 7, 2019
Сам Уилбер назвал свою книгу "ориентирующим обобщением". Он задал систему координат, куда помещаются теории из всех основных областей знаний(психология, биология, физика, религия и др.). Таким образом, рассматривая любой вопрос в этой системе координат, мы видим несколько истин в пространстве и полную картину изучаемой темы. Книга читается нелегко, но с другой стороны понятнее и проще на такую тему вряд ли можно было написать.
February 22, 2023
Have you ever developed a theory based solely on your life experiences only to find out someone else had systematized a nearly identical idea much sooner? Well, I just did.
First, my theory
Since I’ve taken up to reading a lot more than I previously had, I started to notice how physically isolating a thing reading is. If you then, say, not only read a lot but also meditate, watch movies, work on your computer or browse the web, then you might literally spend your entire day by yourself and nearly immobile.
Such considerations didn’t come to me by deduction, but induction: after a few days of heavy reading I’d feel miserable and wonder why. Then I’d go out with a friend for some açaí and marvel at how loquacious I’d be. Clearly, I was thirsting not only for that great Brazilian berry of ours but even more so for meaningful human interactions.
Another thing started bothering me: my back. Being ever so responsive to my bodily cues it didn’t take me long to realize I had to alternate reading with movement. So I’d run/hit the gym and the pain would leave me alone.
These realizations became organically systematized in quadrants: 1a) things I do alone and still, 1b) things I do alone and moving, 2a) things I do with people and still, 2b) things I do with people and moving. And so I’d try to make sure I didn’t overdo any quadrant (quadrant 1a being the only one I was actually in danger of overdoing).
Fast forward to last week and I realize this Kim Wilber guy made a career by applying an astonishingly similar principle to, well, everything. The difference being that instead of movement/stillness, Ken named it subjective and objective. And, sure, he had a ton of other theories. Still, I was glad. I was, like, “way to go Marco, you’ve got what it takes to have partial world-class insights”.
I think from now on I’ll be more outspoken about my theories (I have other two or three).
Truth be told, besides the whole quadrants thing, Ken's got more to say. He thinks the millennia-old back-and-forth debate between what he called the ascenders, that is, people who claim the spiritual world is the only reality and disdain material existence and the descenders, that is, people who claim the opposite, has been raging throughout history for lack of a possibility we now have to integrate everything. So this is Ken’s thing, which he hints at with the name of his book. He tries to ever so pedagogically categorize and systematize everything. Religion, economics, spirituality, psychology, politics, biology… He is very well read (the world genius comes up sometimes when people refer to him) and as of today I am very much enthused by his work.
It's important to know (or is it?) that the guy has been around for some decades now, which seems to have been plenty of time for him to live quite a life: from opening his own institute, to becoming something of a cult leader, falling from favor and even getting deadly ill for decade and, recently, making a come back.
I’m enjoying catching up. If you haven’t checked him out, I very much recommend you do.
First, my theory
Since I’ve taken up to reading a lot more than I previously had, I started to notice how physically isolating a thing reading is. If you then, say, not only read a lot but also meditate, watch movies, work on your computer or browse the web, then you might literally spend your entire day by yourself and nearly immobile.
Such considerations didn’t come to me by deduction, but induction: after a few days of heavy reading I’d feel miserable and wonder why. Then I’d go out with a friend for some açaí and marvel at how loquacious I’d be. Clearly, I was thirsting not only for that great Brazilian berry of ours but even more so for meaningful human interactions.
Another thing started bothering me: my back. Being ever so responsive to my bodily cues it didn’t take me long to realize I had to alternate reading with movement. So I’d run/hit the gym and the pain would leave me alone.
These realizations became organically systematized in quadrants: 1a) things I do alone and still, 1b) things I do alone and moving, 2a) things I do with people and still, 2b) things I do with people and moving. And so I’d try to make sure I didn’t overdo any quadrant (quadrant 1a being the only one I was actually in danger of overdoing).
Fast forward to last week and I realize this Kim Wilber guy made a career by applying an astonishingly similar principle to, well, everything. The difference being that instead of movement/stillness, Ken named it subjective and objective. And, sure, he had a ton of other theories. Still, I was glad. I was, like, “way to go Marco, you’ve got what it takes to have partial world-class insights”.
I think from now on I’ll be more outspoken about my theories (I have other two or three).
Truth be told, besides the whole quadrants thing, Ken's got more to say. He thinks the millennia-old back-and-forth debate between what he called the ascenders, that is, people who claim the spiritual world is the only reality and disdain material existence and the descenders, that is, people who claim the opposite, has been raging throughout history for lack of a possibility we now have to integrate everything. So this is Ken’s thing, which he hints at with the name of his book. He tries to ever so pedagogically categorize and systematize everything. Religion, economics, spirituality, psychology, politics, biology… He is very well read (the world genius comes up sometimes when people refer to him) and as of today I am very much enthused by his work.
It's important to know (or is it?) that the guy has been around for some decades now, which seems to have been plenty of time for him to live quite a life: from opening his own institute, to becoming something of a cult leader, falling from favor and even getting deadly ill for decade and, recently, making a come back.
I’m enjoying catching up. If you haven’t checked him out, I very much recommend you do.
December 27, 2012
Wilber's premise that reality is made of of holons (systems that are in themselves wholes, while simultaneously acting as a part of another system) is coherent and his four quadrant approach (Upperl Left: Interior - Individual(intentional), Bottom Left: Interior - Collective (Cultural -worldspace), Upper Right, Exterior - Individual (behavioural), Lower Right: Exterior - Collective (Social - system) ) to understanding the nature of holons as they emerge and evolve is compelling. He argues, convincingly, that most philosophies and disciplines get caught in one of these quadrants and fail to integrate them, preventing them from arriving at a holistic perspective.
There is a lot worth heeding in these chapters, particularly for those interested the merging of western psychology with eastern mysticism, and in terms of informational /theoretical content I give this book five stars. The way it is written (an incredibly irritating question and answer format) detracts from the content, however, and in the latter half Wilber rambles and repeats himself and seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice far far far too much. A shame, really, because the content is solid.
There is a lot worth heeding in these chapters, particularly for those interested the merging of western psychology with eastern mysticism, and in terms of informational /theoretical content I give this book five stars. The way it is written (an incredibly irritating question and answer format) detracts from the content, however, and in the latter half Wilber rambles and repeats himself and seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice far far far too much. A shame, really, because the content is solid.
December 11, 2019
This book is essentially unreadable, although there may be some good ideas buried in the author's convoluted language, pretentious style (he is interviewing himself!), and preening self-regard. The stuff about 'holons' and the 'Kosmos', etc. is just so silly. There are ancient mystical traditions that can be studied on their own terms. Read the source materials and identify the universal aspects within each tradition on your own. This is too great a task to outsource. If you never accomplish the total synthesis--the elusive realization of an over-arching principle--well, neither has this author. Nor have I.
Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, the gendered anthropological analyses seem half-baked--like the author is opining on a subject in which he is not well-studied. Also, mansplain much? Oy.
If you bought this book seeking a synthesis of science and mysticism, do yourself a favor and pick up 'God & The Big Bang' by Daniel Matt. If you have some familiarity with eastern and western metaphysics, then Matt's simple style and his holistic approach will bring it home for you.
Also, as other reviewers have mentioned, the gendered anthropological analyses seem half-baked--like the author is opining on a subject in which he is not well-studied. Also, mansplain much? Oy.
If you bought this book seeking a synthesis of science and mysticism, do yourself a favor and pick up 'God & The Big Bang' by Daniel Matt. If you have some familiarity with eastern and western metaphysics, then Matt's simple style and his holistic approach will bring it home for you.
August 14, 2019
This book was a really thought-provoking time. The first half is really just something else—it's hard for me to imagine anyone disputing Wilber's take on the history of the world / cosmos / humanity up to the point we're at now. His thoughts on all that are super insightful and it really does crystallize how interdependent everything—beliefs, structures, individuals, collectives—is. Once it gets into the more speculative side of things, it started to go a little woo woo on me. I wouldn't call this a New Age book by any stretch, but it started looking like he was taking for givens things that, bare minimum, we should be skeptical about because all we have to prove them are anecdotal evidence and the guidance of spiritual traditions. Still, I did genuinely enjoy the whole thing. It's a head trip I'd recommend to anyone.
January 31, 2020
A fundamental book. This is one of the clearest books I’ve ever read that gets to the heart of reality and consciousness.
November 23, 2023
My favorite quote from the book:
“The UFO anal probe: where Freud meets Jung.”
Ken Wilber can be described as Bertrand Russel with a spiritual twist. He’s extremely intelligent, unbelievably well-read, unbelievably… he is a likable character, makes the reader feel smart, and most of all, makes a lot of sense 99% of the time with lucid and down-to-earth language and humor, even though it gets technical by necessity.
Wilber’s central ideas are very Schelling-Hegel-inspired. The universe, life, biology, societies, and individuals are part of a “Great chain” or an evolution that has recursive patterns and an overall direction toward more complexity and higher self-actualization.
I’m very fond of Wilber’s style of thinking. He outlines general universal principles of the world, and all his concepts are sort of soft… they are applied as “percentages,” “fractals,” or “recursive,” meaning they apply on varying degrees and scales, microcosms, and macrocosms. Nothing Wilber outlines is really set in stone per se: this is the model; rather, this is how models work; it’s like a meta-theory. In other words, Wilber finds a nice balance between a more orderly view of the world without creating false “yes no” categories that simplify the word to the user’s detriment. A rare accomplishment if you ask me.
He takes a very balanced approach, neither conventionally liberal nor conservative. He has a refreshingly unique perceptive.
There are some fundamental pieces to his theory.
He identifies twenty rules that all “holons,” the fundamental building bricks of reality, operate on.
He identifies four quadrants of understanding the world.
He emphasizes the importance of evolution, both micro and macro.
He’s adamant about reconciling other-worldly and this-worldly philosophy.
There’s a Spirit that is both the Exterior and Interior, both material and consciousness, which are two sides of the same coin, that of Spirit.
I’m a big fan of the four-quadrant model. I think it’s a very helpful way of thinking about problems. And it can be applied to virtually anything. It’s a nice tool, crystallizing something that was vague before. The four quadrant model is Interior individual (consciousness), Interior shared (culture), external individual (physiology) and external shared (world). The Interior is what does not have a location or is quantifiable but nonetheless exists. The exterior is what can be seen but has no value in itself.
The point is that we shouldn’t deny one quadrant over the other. Each is a different side to the same coin; each is interrelated, and attacking problems merely from one quadrant is suboptimal.
With this four-quadrant model, he points out that all ways of thinking until now have existed in either of these quadrants. And making these explicit helps a great deal in making a conscious effort to approach problems in a more “holistic,” effective, and true manner.
According to his system, there is no quadrant that exclusively affects each other. For example, individual consciousness does not control individual physiology (Radical free will) and not the other way around (Determinism); rather, all four quadrants affect each other in any direction. The societal system will have a strong influence on the cultural worldview, which sets limits to individual thoughts which will register in the brain physiology. Wilber rejects causality in the form that one quadrant “causes” effects in another, but instead, that they are all manifestations of Spirit, something that is really one but appears to be multiple. He says they are all equally determining; they all cause and are caused by the other quadrants. Something that defies how we tend to understand conventional causality and logic.
As I alluded to earlier, Wilber believes in the grand evolution of the world. And he does not subscribe to evolution in terms of merely survival and chance. He instead takes the idea of Spirit, which is, as far as I understand it, both material and consciousness, bound by certain tenets. In other words, the world is not random or meaningless, but there is a grand narrative to the world, to societies, and to individuals. And in doing so, Wilber makes a case for the inevitability of the status quo and history.
Wilber points out that the psychological developmental stages of children can be extended into even higher psychological stages of spiritual stages. In the same way, we experience paradigm shifts from being an infant to being an adult today; there is no reason why we can’t stop having paradigm shifts, a “higher level of consciousness.” Wilber is convincing here, especially by how he uses research such as Piaget’s to clearly make the point that there are reliable paradigm shifts in children at certain age ranges.
As individuals ascend in consciousness, we become less and less narcissistic. Wilber outlines four stages of spiritual consciousness that have been described in somewhat or another in all mystic traditions. As young children, we did not have an identity separate from the world, then we separated from the world, but not our bodies. Then we separated from our bodies, but not the mind. And so it goes. Eventually, we stop identifying with the ego, and our identity becomes one with nature, one with consciousness, and finally, one with the non-duality of Spirit. There was one more stage but ain’t that important.
I think this is a great introduction to higher states of consciousness for those not spiritually inclined. It just makes lucid sense.
I suppose the Free will / Determinism paradox cannot be solved but dissolved by transcending consciousness and identifying with the non-dual Spirit. That would be nice.
I have a thought, along the lines of Wilber’s style of thinking, that you are never too developed to work on any stage or paradigm or “fulcrum,” if you may. The psyche is like a house, and as you strengthen the foundational, you strengthen the most developed parts as well. For that reason, I reject that, for example, existentialism is passé philosophically. And one philosophy simply replaces another. Now we’re supposed to be postmodernists. As Wilber points out, transcend and include. But I’d add emphasis that because you’ve already gone through the 1-2-3 process of identifying, differentiating, and integrating, it doesn’t mean there’s still work to be done on each level; as Wilber points out, no one individual is simply “at a certain stage.” And so again, it’s faulty to think you don’t get any value from studying “outdated” material.
One thing that does genuinely concern me is that when you put the amount of emphasis on evolution (the great chain) as Wilber does, it invariably leads to an inclination to associate difference with higher or lower. You start to judge people and cultures in accordance with how Spirit has evolved, and of course, the West is at the head of this Spiritual evolution. I’m not in disagreement with the idea of “holarchies’ and depth of value, though it seems awfully convenient to say the way the West has progressed is part of the Divine plan, so to say, and all others are merely lagging behind. It’s a comforting and flattering thought, and that’s precisely why I’m skeptical of it.
Right after finishing this book, I saw a guy wearing a shirt in a really bizarre fashion, and I said to myself, in jest, “Woah, what kind of level of consciousness is he on?” Even though that was a playful thought, it is a genuine concern to me that this abstract and sophisticated model can be an elitist weapon against people you don’t like, particularly of the conservatives, who aren’t as fond of “include” and world-centric growth as Wilber.
Nevertheless, I’m against cultural relativism or any moral relativism in any case, and it’s necessary and right, in my opinion, to say that the level of “conscience” of individuals is restricted to the level of the center of conscious development in their culture, which may lead them to enslave people, sacrifice human beings and eat animals raised in terrible conditions without any bothering from their poorly-dressed cricket on their shoulder.
In Wilber’s discussions of the “consciousness gap” contrasted to the “economic gap,” I can’t help but think Wilber was alluding to the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Trump. It does seem like smart people like Wilber and Paul Check use the framework of Spiritual growth to criticize political conservatives as having a “low level of consciousness” due to their ethnocentricity.
I flat-out deny that liberals have a higher state of consciousness than conservatives. And Wilber, I believe, would agree, saying that elitists are shoving down their high-consciousness beliefs onto the throats of the less developed masses, which adopt, for example, altruistic and world-saving ideals in us vs. them type of fashion.
Wilbers level of thought was, for the vast majority, very high and nuanced. His level of thought severely dropped discussing ethics regarding vegetarianism. Equal was the drop of intellectual nuance when Bertrand Russel discusses Christ in “Why I’m not a Christian.” For some reason, highly intelligent people simply shut down on certain topics.
Wilber makes the mistake of deriving very specific ethical courses of action from a very abstract principle, namely, to embrace both depth and span. He says, “It’s much better to kick a rock than an ape, much better to eat a carrot than a cow, much better to subsist on grains than on mammals.”
Regarding the carrot better than cow thing - and Alan Watts! Oh God! - Allan Watts, when asked why he was a vegetarian, answered by saying Carrots don’t scream when you eat them. What an idiotic thing to say by such an intelligent man!
.
Are predators inherently more immoral because they kill things that make more noise than, say, berry-eating deer? Do you know what happens if you remove predators from an environment? Everyone suffers - a lot more than if they were there.
Also… for the sake of argument, if I was a floating monad in the ephemeral space, and I was given a choice to not be manifested in reality at all or be a cow that was bred for the sake of being slaughtered after a certain amount of time in order to provide health and vitality to humankind, and during that lifespan, I would get to chill, hang out with other cows, eat nice grass, fornicate once in a while, and be treated by loving farmers, I’d say sign me up! Only a prudish monad, in my opinion, would say that’s beneath my dignity.
I will officially accuse Wilber of Vegan-smuggling, that is, providing an abstract and interesting model of philosophy and then here and there mentioning that carrots are preferable to meat!
If I was given a choice to be a diabolically genetically engineered chicken in a loud clacking smelly farmhouse for the sake of providing antibiotic-filled mediocre meat probably fried in trans fat eaten by some unconscious guy watching Netflix, I’d say fuck off, I’m staying in the unmanifested thank you very much.
His ethics seem very vague to me. The intrinsic value (depth) and extrinsic value (span) are clever but don’t seem to solve any problems. He says he’d rather kill a Mafia gangster than a couple of apes, even though the human being has more depth than the apes. But I wish he’d clarify why. Chimpanzees, for example, brutally murder each other like a Mafia gangster would. So where do you make the value judgment?
I mean, according to his “holarchy” based ethics, an ape should have more value than a worm. Unless it’s a really mean ape. If the ape is a dickhead, it’s actually worth less than a dickhead worm because, well, he can inflict more damage, I guess. But by adding value judgments to the picture, I don’t really see how the idea of “intrinsic value” matters at all!
Wilber says, “Even though an ape and an atom are both perfect expressions of Spirit, the ape has more depth, more wholeness, and therefore more intrinsic value.) Again - I’m troubled by the fact that “depth” seems awfully subjective. Species of evolution does not evolve “forward” while others “stay the same,” it’s more like, species just adapt to their current environment. And who’s to judge what is up and what is down? Mere complexity? As Wilber points out, the materialistic worldview made size the only value, a terrible basis of value judgment. States of consciousness? Well, if an ape is more worthy than a worm because of a higher level of consciousness, does that mean an adult is more worthy than a child? What and where exactly is this “intrinsic” value? I know this is a brief introduction to his models, so perhaps I’m expecting too much to be fleshed out. But it does seem to me that something very important is missing.
Wilber discusses the different stages of human philosophy. First, morals, science, and art were fused together, undifferentiated. Then the Enlightenment’s accomplishment was to differentiate these realms. “I,” “Us,” and “It.” But the problem was from then on, the representation paradigm went rampant, focusing on only “It,” which the Industrialization and empirical science (which feeds off each other) only exacerbated. True knowledge, for the Enlightementists, was found in the empirical world. The single “Truth” can be found simply by mapping the “One true world.”
Then the post-modernists found out that’s impossible because “The self” is not just a “Monad” inseparable from the world but is influenced by the world, from society. Our very perspective of how we view the world and how we value things is determined by genetics, our upbringing, and our society. The problem with the Enlightenment approach was that the problem with maps was that it left out the mapmaker.
Hegel put it beautifully when he said, “We must realize that thoughts are not merely a reflection on reality, but are also a movement of that very reality itself.”
For example, our thoughts do not pop into our heads out of nowhere. They pop into my head out of a cultural background. Children who do not learn a language do not produce linguistic thoughts on their own. The self is not the autonomous and self-generating monad as the Enlightenment imagined.
Now comes a questionable statement of Wilber, namely that interpretation is not a subjective whim; there are good and bad interpretations of Hamlet. So far, so good. But my difficulty is that the way he says what a good and bad interpretation is determined by “the community,” which implies that the correct mode of interpreting a text is basically conformist. The validity of an interpretation, Wilber states, is determined “by a community of those who have looked into the same depth.” He continues, “The interpretation can be easily rejected by a community f those who have read and studied the text - that is, by a community who have entered the interior of Hamlet, by those who share the same depth.”
The point of interpretation matters - a lot - because it’s not merely a question of how to interpret classic books but how we can value one perspective, one truth, one morality, over another, in an objective way. In other words, we must show that one interpretation is better than another if we can state there is a Truth. And Wilber has not been very convincing on this point.
One of the strongest sides of the book was how Wilber puts Enlightenment, Ego-transcendence philosophy, and Eco-Romantic philosophy into a brilliant perspective and uses his four quadrant model to criticize how these philosophies get it wrong.
I am totally on board with Wilber’s idea that we have to focus on all four quadrants, and I am convinced that this model is truly innovative and useful. As the brief encounter with the colors of consciousness made a permanent mark in my mind, Wilbers detailed ideas will also linger and influence me in, I believe, significant ways. Knowing these models doesn’t solve much, at least right away, but at least it gives something to hold on to.
The point is, what Wilber sees as ideal, is that we take all four quadrants and apply them across each stage of development, body to mind to soul to Spirit, and combine the ascending and descending paradigms, like Plato, the papa of philosophy, wanted us to. Listen to your daddy! This means, basically, that the world is the manifestation of the Spirit, so worldly beauty ought to be embraced, but there ought to be transcendence to higher realms of consciousness too.
Despite the quirks and questions, which probably is due to my lack of understanding, and the Carrot-smuggling, Ken Wilber’s work is amazing. God bless him and his genuine search for truth and spiritual development
“The UFO anal probe: where Freud meets Jung.”
Ken Wilber can be described as Bertrand Russel with a spiritual twist. He’s extremely intelligent, unbelievably well-read, unbelievably… he is a likable character, makes the reader feel smart, and most of all, makes a lot of sense 99% of the time with lucid and down-to-earth language and humor, even though it gets technical by necessity.
Wilber’s central ideas are very Schelling-Hegel-inspired. The universe, life, biology, societies, and individuals are part of a “Great chain” or an evolution that has recursive patterns and an overall direction toward more complexity and higher self-actualization.
I’m very fond of Wilber’s style of thinking. He outlines general universal principles of the world, and all his concepts are sort of soft… they are applied as “percentages,” “fractals,” or “recursive,” meaning they apply on varying degrees and scales, microcosms, and macrocosms. Nothing Wilber outlines is really set in stone per se: this is the model; rather, this is how models work; it’s like a meta-theory. In other words, Wilber finds a nice balance between a more orderly view of the world without creating false “yes no” categories that simplify the word to the user’s detriment. A rare accomplishment if you ask me.
He takes a very balanced approach, neither conventionally liberal nor conservative. He has a refreshingly unique perceptive.
There are some fundamental pieces to his theory.
He identifies twenty rules that all “holons,” the fundamental building bricks of reality, operate on.
He identifies four quadrants of understanding the world.
He emphasizes the importance of evolution, both micro and macro.
He’s adamant about reconciling other-worldly and this-worldly philosophy.
There’s a Spirit that is both the Exterior and Interior, both material and consciousness, which are two sides of the same coin, that of Spirit.
I’m a big fan of the four-quadrant model. I think it’s a very helpful way of thinking about problems. And it can be applied to virtually anything. It’s a nice tool, crystallizing something that was vague before. The four quadrant model is Interior individual (consciousness), Interior shared (culture), external individual (physiology) and external shared (world). The Interior is what does not have a location or is quantifiable but nonetheless exists. The exterior is what can be seen but has no value in itself.
The point is that we shouldn’t deny one quadrant over the other. Each is a different side to the same coin; each is interrelated, and attacking problems merely from one quadrant is suboptimal.
With this four-quadrant model, he points out that all ways of thinking until now have existed in either of these quadrants. And making these explicit helps a great deal in making a conscious effort to approach problems in a more “holistic,” effective, and true manner.
According to his system, there is no quadrant that exclusively affects each other. For example, individual consciousness does not control individual physiology (Radical free will) and not the other way around (Determinism); rather, all four quadrants affect each other in any direction. The societal system will have a strong influence on the cultural worldview, which sets limits to individual thoughts which will register in the brain physiology. Wilber rejects causality in the form that one quadrant “causes” effects in another, but instead, that they are all manifestations of Spirit, something that is really one but appears to be multiple. He says they are all equally determining; they all cause and are caused by the other quadrants. Something that defies how we tend to understand conventional causality and logic.
As I alluded to earlier, Wilber believes in the grand evolution of the world. And he does not subscribe to evolution in terms of merely survival and chance. He instead takes the idea of Spirit, which is, as far as I understand it, both material and consciousness, bound by certain tenets. In other words, the world is not random or meaningless, but there is a grand narrative to the world, to societies, and to individuals. And in doing so, Wilber makes a case for the inevitability of the status quo and history.
Wilber points out that the psychological developmental stages of children can be extended into even higher psychological stages of spiritual stages. In the same way, we experience paradigm shifts from being an infant to being an adult today; there is no reason why we can’t stop having paradigm shifts, a “higher level of consciousness.” Wilber is convincing here, especially by how he uses research such as Piaget’s to clearly make the point that there are reliable paradigm shifts in children at certain age ranges.
As individuals ascend in consciousness, we become less and less narcissistic. Wilber outlines four stages of spiritual consciousness that have been described in somewhat or another in all mystic traditions. As young children, we did not have an identity separate from the world, then we separated from the world, but not our bodies. Then we separated from our bodies, but not the mind. And so it goes. Eventually, we stop identifying with the ego, and our identity becomes one with nature, one with consciousness, and finally, one with the non-duality of Spirit. There was one more stage but ain’t that important.
I think this is a great introduction to higher states of consciousness for those not spiritually inclined. It just makes lucid sense.
I suppose the Free will / Determinism paradox cannot be solved but dissolved by transcending consciousness and identifying with the non-dual Spirit. That would be nice.
I have a thought, along the lines of Wilber’s style of thinking, that you are never too developed to work on any stage or paradigm or “fulcrum,” if you may. The psyche is like a house, and as you strengthen the foundational, you strengthen the most developed parts as well. For that reason, I reject that, for example, existentialism is passé philosophically. And one philosophy simply replaces another. Now we’re supposed to be postmodernists. As Wilber points out, transcend and include. But I’d add emphasis that because you’ve already gone through the 1-2-3 process of identifying, differentiating, and integrating, it doesn’t mean there’s still work to be done on each level; as Wilber points out, no one individual is simply “at a certain stage.” And so again, it’s faulty to think you don’t get any value from studying “outdated” material.
One thing that does genuinely concern me is that when you put the amount of emphasis on evolution (the great chain) as Wilber does, it invariably leads to an inclination to associate difference with higher or lower. You start to judge people and cultures in accordance with how Spirit has evolved, and of course, the West is at the head of this Spiritual evolution. I’m not in disagreement with the idea of “holarchies’ and depth of value, though it seems awfully convenient to say the way the West has progressed is part of the Divine plan, so to say, and all others are merely lagging behind. It’s a comforting and flattering thought, and that’s precisely why I’m skeptical of it.
Right after finishing this book, I saw a guy wearing a shirt in a really bizarre fashion, and I said to myself, in jest, “Woah, what kind of level of consciousness is he on?” Even though that was a playful thought, it is a genuine concern to me that this abstract and sophisticated model can be an elitist weapon against people you don’t like, particularly of the conservatives, who aren’t as fond of “include” and world-centric growth as Wilber.
Nevertheless, I’m against cultural relativism or any moral relativism in any case, and it’s necessary and right, in my opinion, to say that the level of “conscience” of individuals is restricted to the level of the center of conscious development in their culture, which may lead them to enslave people, sacrifice human beings and eat animals raised in terrible conditions without any bothering from their poorly-dressed cricket on their shoulder.
In Wilber’s discussions of the “consciousness gap” contrasted to the “economic gap,” I can’t help but think Wilber was alluding to the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Trump. It does seem like smart people like Wilber and Paul Check use the framework of Spiritual growth to criticize political conservatives as having a “low level of consciousness” due to their ethnocentricity.
I flat-out deny that liberals have a higher state of consciousness than conservatives. And Wilber, I believe, would agree, saying that elitists are shoving down their high-consciousness beliefs onto the throats of the less developed masses, which adopt, for example, altruistic and world-saving ideals in us vs. them type of fashion.
Wilbers level of thought was, for the vast majority, very high and nuanced. His level of thought severely dropped discussing ethics regarding vegetarianism. Equal was the drop of intellectual nuance when Bertrand Russel discusses Christ in “Why I’m not a Christian.” For some reason, highly intelligent people simply shut down on certain topics.
Wilber makes the mistake of deriving very specific ethical courses of action from a very abstract principle, namely, to embrace both depth and span. He says, “It’s much better to kick a rock than an ape, much better to eat a carrot than a cow, much better to subsist on grains than on mammals.”
Regarding the carrot better than cow thing - and Alan Watts! Oh God! - Allan Watts, when asked why he was a vegetarian, answered by saying Carrots don’t scream when you eat them. What an idiotic thing to say by such an intelligent man!
.
Are predators inherently more immoral because they kill things that make more noise than, say, berry-eating deer? Do you know what happens if you remove predators from an environment? Everyone suffers - a lot more than if they were there.
Also… for the sake of argument, if I was a floating monad in the ephemeral space, and I was given a choice to not be manifested in reality at all or be a cow that was bred for the sake of being slaughtered after a certain amount of time in order to provide health and vitality to humankind, and during that lifespan, I would get to chill, hang out with other cows, eat nice grass, fornicate once in a while, and be treated by loving farmers, I’d say sign me up! Only a prudish monad, in my opinion, would say that’s beneath my dignity.
I will officially accuse Wilber of Vegan-smuggling, that is, providing an abstract and interesting model of philosophy and then here and there mentioning that carrots are preferable to meat!
If I was given a choice to be a diabolically genetically engineered chicken in a loud clacking smelly farmhouse for the sake of providing antibiotic-filled mediocre meat probably fried in trans fat eaten by some unconscious guy watching Netflix, I’d say fuck off, I’m staying in the unmanifested thank you very much.
His ethics seem very vague to me. The intrinsic value (depth) and extrinsic value (span) are clever but don’t seem to solve any problems. He says he’d rather kill a Mafia gangster than a couple of apes, even though the human being has more depth than the apes. But I wish he’d clarify why. Chimpanzees, for example, brutally murder each other like a Mafia gangster would. So where do you make the value judgment?
I mean, according to his “holarchy” based ethics, an ape should have more value than a worm. Unless it’s a really mean ape. If the ape is a dickhead, it’s actually worth less than a dickhead worm because, well, he can inflict more damage, I guess. But by adding value judgments to the picture, I don’t really see how the idea of “intrinsic value” matters at all!
Wilber says, “Even though an ape and an atom are both perfect expressions of Spirit, the ape has more depth, more wholeness, and therefore more intrinsic value.) Again - I’m troubled by the fact that “depth” seems awfully subjective. Species of evolution does not evolve “forward” while others “stay the same,” it’s more like, species just adapt to their current environment. And who’s to judge what is up and what is down? Mere complexity? As Wilber points out, the materialistic worldview made size the only value, a terrible basis of value judgment. States of consciousness? Well, if an ape is more worthy than a worm because of a higher level of consciousness, does that mean an adult is more worthy than a child? What and where exactly is this “intrinsic” value? I know this is a brief introduction to his models, so perhaps I’m expecting too much to be fleshed out. But it does seem to me that something very important is missing.
Wilber discusses the different stages of human philosophy. First, morals, science, and art were fused together, undifferentiated. Then the Enlightenment’s accomplishment was to differentiate these realms. “I,” “Us,” and “It.” But the problem was from then on, the representation paradigm went rampant, focusing on only “It,” which the Industrialization and empirical science (which feeds off each other) only exacerbated. True knowledge, for the Enlightementists, was found in the empirical world. The single “Truth” can be found simply by mapping the “One true world.”
Then the post-modernists found out that’s impossible because “The self” is not just a “Monad” inseparable from the world but is influenced by the world, from society. Our very perspective of how we view the world and how we value things is determined by genetics, our upbringing, and our society. The problem with the Enlightenment approach was that the problem with maps was that it left out the mapmaker.
Hegel put it beautifully when he said, “We must realize that thoughts are not merely a reflection on reality, but are also a movement of that very reality itself.”
For example, our thoughts do not pop into our heads out of nowhere. They pop into my head out of a cultural background. Children who do not learn a language do not produce linguistic thoughts on their own. The self is not the autonomous and self-generating monad as the Enlightenment imagined.
Now comes a questionable statement of Wilber, namely that interpretation is not a subjective whim; there are good and bad interpretations of Hamlet. So far, so good. But my difficulty is that the way he says what a good and bad interpretation is determined by “the community,” which implies that the correct mode of interpreting a text is basically conformist. The validity of an interpretation, Wilber states, is determined “by a community of those who have looked into the same depth.” He continues, “The interpretation can be easily rejected by a community f those who have read and studied the text - that is, by a community who have entered the interior of Hamlet, by those who share the same depth.”
The point of interpretation matters - a lot - because it’s not merely a question of how to interpret classic books but how we can value one perspective, one truth, one morality, over another, in an objective way. In other words, we must show that one interpretation is better than another if we can state there is a Truth. And Wilber has not been very convincing on this point.
One of the strongest sides of the book was how Wilber puts Enlightenment, Ego-transcendence philosophy, and Eco-Romantic philosophy into a brilliant perspective and uses his four quadrant model to criticize how these philosophies get it wrong.
I am totally on board with Wilber’s idea that we have to focus on all four quadrants, and I am convinced that this model is truly innovative and useful. As the brief encounter with the colors of consciousness made a permanent mark in my mind, Wilbers detailed ideas will also linger and influence me in, I believe, significant ways. Knowing these models doesn’t solve much, at least right away, but at least it gives something to hold on to.
The point is, what Wilber sees as ideal, is that we take all four quadrants and apply them across each stage of development, body to mind to soul to Spirit, and combine the ascending and descending paradigms, like Plato, the papa of philosophy, wanted us to. Listen to your daddy! This means, basically, that the world is the manifestation of the Spirit, so worldly beauty ought to be embraced, but there ought to be transcendence to higher realms of consciousness too.
Despite the quirks and questions, which probably is due to my lack of understanding, and the Carrot-smuggling, Ken Wilber’s work is amazing. God bless him and his genuine search for truth and spiritual development
Displaying 1 - 30 of 348 reviews