A Brief History of Everything [Paperback]

No, this is not philosophy as it is understood by the grown-ups, although it surely is a dumbed down strand of Hegelianism (what else could it be with such a cute title?). This is a kind of New Age chirping for people who prefer not to strain their brains excessively and to feel well with the least mental expense. How does one earn a reputation in these circles? Easy: by preaching ignorance to the ignorant.

Here are a few examples that should serve as a caution to everyone who might otherwise be taken for a ride, as I surely was. If you are a Hegelian, at some point you must introduce the ï¿Spiritï¿. Wilber does it pretty early by discussing evolution. The wing, according to him, is useful only when fully developed ï¿ a half-wing is no good. Such a sophisticated instrument could only have evolved with the help of a supreme agency. This is an argument from a Jehovah Witnesses tract: the real science points out that even a quarter-wing (as well as a quarter-eye) is usually better than none if it gives the animal the slightest edge over the wingless. And it does: somebody should have shown Wilber a flying squirrel.

Introducing his theory of ï¿holonsï¿ Wilber states that matter is infinitely divisible (and compounded). The real science, of course, has discovered otherwise: the string is the smallest element of matter.

The discussion of the Big Bang and of what could have ï¿precededï¿ it is altogether laughable. What is missing throughout the book is an awareness that every proposition is worthless unless provable.

When mentioning the Axial Age with its saints and prophets, Wilber studiously omits every name connected with the Judeo-Christian tradition. One feels an agenda, but it is never stated explicitly. Sneaky.

Last but not least: the whole book is written in the form of a dialog, but the only purpose of the questioner is to suck up to the answerer; he never advances any intelligent objection, never mentions any contrarian authority with the exception of some feminists. This must be the easiest way of philosophical discourse.

I must confess that I picked up this book because its main thesis, the poverty of the reductionism, is close to my heart. But I would rather stay with the reductionists as long as they respect my intelligence.

Ken Wilber's book is separated into three parts, with the last chapter of the third part being an epilogue of sorts. I was riveted in the first two parts, partly bored in the third, and enjoyed the ending.

The book is written in Q & A style, which I thought worked quite well with the subject matter. Although the questions were, of course, leading the reader to a certain path, it did help me think through the points the author was trying to make.

The first part ("Spirit in Action") I thought of as "world evolution". This section lays the foundation of Wilber's thinking, how systems evolve, and proposes a four-quadrant approach for thinking about that evolution in a holistic fashion. The four quadrants encompass the inside and outside of the self ("I" and "it", the conscious and the physical) and the inside and outside of groups, or cultures ("we" and "its"). This leads to an discussion about world evolution, describing how the world has evolved from archaic to magic to mythic to rational and on.

The second part ("The Further Reaches of Spirit-in-Action") I thought of as personal evolution. Using the same framework and providing background from psychology and philosophy studies, Wilber shows a personal evolution through "fulcrums" or steps (eureka moments?) as a person moves up the spiritual/thought evolution. Parallels are drawn between the world evolution and personal evolution, and it is reinforced constantly that this must be an integral approach, i.e., it cannot just be logical ("it") and it cannot just be consicousness ("I") but must be a non-dualistic approach.

The third part ("Beyond Flatland") was a much too-long treatise on Wilber's opinion on why and how we have gotten off of the path of these two evolutions, personal and world. He makes quite a good argument, but goes to great lengths to categorize previous philosphers and thinkers into different buckets to prove his main point (which is that we have gone into many different dis-integrated directions, lead by the "Ego" set (logical thinkers without spirituality) and the "Eco" set (back to nature, everything is feeling) when we should be heading for a non-dualistic integrated approach). There is much too much academic argument in this section than there were in the previous two parts, and, while I am certain it serves the purpose of making Wilber's point, I found it slowed the book down tremendously, ala a textbook.

The last chapter of the third part is a summary of where Wilber thinks we are now in our evolution and where we should go. This was a excellent ending to the book, pulling together his thinking of an "Integral Vision".

This was my first Ken Wilber book. Although the Q&A turned me off at first, the first two parts were quite readable and accessible. I reccommend those two sections for any and all. I look forward to reading more of Mr. Wilber's works.

Ken Wilber shows us that although we all take different roads in life, we share a common direction in our development and evolution. He brings together a vast number of theories and observations and organizes them into one theory. It is quite amazing! Wilber has written many books on this subject but this is the one I would recommend people to read first. If you'd like a shorter, more simplified but extremely well-organized / well-articulated book that covers this material, I strongly suggest "The Ever-transcending Spirit" by Toru Sato. It also discusses practical implications of these ideas that make you feel like you could have saved a lot of hassle and confusion if you read it eariler in your life. Both Wilber and Sato are clearly two of the most advanced thinkers of our time.