Customer Reviews

The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I enjoyed Wilber's writing, but his argument about the common ground between science and religion makes some assumptions about science that are just flat wrong. He draws a line between 'broad science' and 'narrow science' to support several theories including that meditation is a 'portal to the Divine'. Science makes no such distinction. Things are either verifiable, repeatable and relevant or they are not. It was a distorted presentation based on a tortured definition of what science is and is not.

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.

This is the book on modern philosophy. Everyone should read this, Ken Wilbur fan or not. His ideas are revolutionary. The integrating of science and religion is one of the most important things we need today in our society, so it is imperative that we all understand this. Definately the pennacle of Wilbur's work.

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.

Although Wilber is one of the most advanced thinkers of our time, most of his books are so diffucult to understand perhaps because it is too advanced for most of us. With this book, Wilber takes common knowledge and introduces his ideas in relation to these things by using something very similar to a scaffolding technique. I thought this was very effective and allows many more of us to thoroughly appreciate his theory. Although I think Toru Sato's theory takes it one step further in the exceptional book called "The Ever-Transcending Spirit" he uses the same type of technique to deliver his message. I think this is an excellent way to present advanced material like this to a general audience. If you are interested in developing a good understanding of Wilber's theory, this may be the right book for you. If you want to understand more, read "The Ever-Transcending Spirit" by Toru Sato.

I've read five Wilber books so far (Brief History of Everything, Theory of Everything, One Taste, Eye of the Spirit, and Marriage of Sense and Soul) and this one contains the most comprehensive, clear and complete exposition of his ideas. I don't know why Kirkus calls it "labarynthine", because I found it also among the most readable and humorous. I love hearing him slam away at the excesses of post-modern theorists. I also think this book has the most lucid descriptions of the quadrant theory, the pre/trans falacy and other big Wilber constructs. The "theory of everything" books both felt like he was always talking about the theory without ever really taking you through it. This is the one to get to really get going with Wilber.

In the globalization of the world's religions the inexorable collision of the great Indian yogas, or rather their disorganized traditions, and the 'western' heritage of both philosophy and science requires some kind of intelligent mediation and this work deserves mention hands down on that basis, without any particular agreement as such with the views taken. In fact, its clear insight into the limitations of western pyschologies is very much to the point, although something the fans of Indian traditions forever enjoy pointing out. I found problems however from the first, although it is more an issue of the New Age wasteland than of Wilbur's reasonable clarifications. Philosophy evokes contempt in yogis, but these paths fail to see the logic of history, where filling a postmodern void with theosophical noise will in the end wreck the modern project. Is that redemptive?
It is clear that we have a Darwin problem, and it is clear that scientism, and the 'it-science' Wilber skewers, is susceptible to this one-dimensional thinking, may as well toss in the towel here, but can we justifiably reinvent the Grain Chain of Being to resolve these questions, as a new science? Who is the intermediary here, save a new priesthood?
The trap, and here Wilber, unlike many New Agers, shows a surprisingly cogent interest, was in fact seen by the great phase of German philosophy, at least in its Kantian version. Face it, the New Age is a metaphysical wasteland of borderline concepts, a dash of Kant might help. This Western wildflower 'Upanishadic' vein, is really a cousin, and should be of interest at the point where nine out of ten Buddhists spend forever deciphering the meaning of 'anatta'. Wilber's insight here suddenly becomes cavalier, and we are 'de-Kantianized' quite cleverly for the usual rerun of metaphysical mischief, with Fichte now to meditate out of his difficulties (head tied in knots by Kant), and the whole failure is now postmodern symptomology, etc... (Wilber is too smart, one hopes, to produce postmodern excesses, but he tends to harp on this issue, and to hope the New Age will fill some illusory postmodern void suggests these initiatives have a poor sense of history). If the Western tradition spawns philosophy instead of meditation, there is a reason, and if this did not bring us Patanjali, it is also true they worked hard to create a society that welcomes the 'autonomy' of the true yogi, something the history of guruism was unable to accomplish. Soul, divinity, and 'free will/freedom/causality' in the Kantian triple spawns three civilization for each one, and the 'yoga' of the west is concealed in these philosophies too many New Agers contemptuously dismiss.
In fact, it is the Western critical attitude that now tells us the original Gita wasn't even theistic, which drives one to examine Wilber's 'post-Kantian' cleverness on this issue, here we go again. In general, the legacy of spiritual movements of this type is one of unique cultural degradation, whence this excessive confidence in the deliverance of the 'postmodern' West with these methods?
All in all this work is much better than so many New Age treatments of the issues, that I should note this cavil is partly pro forma. Interesting book, and some time behind 'enemy' lines. I could hardly judge, and note the way these yogas adapt to new environments, now the American.
For the seeker after meditation these are quibbles, perhaps, and this approach of Wilbur's might help more than philosophy! Since he means to pied piper children (Fichtes!) away from philosophy (understanding) we can gloat that he steps into Kantian flypaper.

First off this is a fine summation and introduction of Ken's ideas and theories. The book stands alone, it does not require the reader to read anything else of his - unlike his latter works.

Ken's basic premise is that one can use the empirical science model of evaluation to spiritual domains of knowledge. Unlike Traditionalists - who are epistemological pluralists and relegate the sciences to lowest level of existence ie; matter.
Where Ken is trying to do opposite that modern western science is a partner to spiritual progres by showing that it works all the way up - in theory. Which so far no major scientist has endorsed and won't happen for obvious reasons.

Along the way to this point Ken shows the 4 quadrandt model,holons, etc. Takes on flatland science (current mentality of viewing everything in the world as inconnected 'its' and destruction of quality and the interior domains of knowledge). His dissection of post-modernism is the best I've ever read. He exposes the contradictions within it and put's it down like a mad dog. He also deals with the mythic aspect of religion quite well, but I'll the previous reviewers speak on this.

Ken, tries quite hard to make modern western science into something more than it or could be accepted by most scientists.
That it can be of use in spiritual matters - which of course provokes howls of outrage by those in science. Because they already know that the interior domains can't be quantified nor measured, hence in their minds don't exist. As Ken said 'Love is reduced to serotonin levels" or "mind reduced to binary bits".

He also states that all paths end up in the same place. Though I doubt a Zennist or Christian/Sufi mystic would agree since both have diametrically opposing views on many subjects. One believes we have a soul and the other does not, the Zennists believe we don't even exist nor does the world - it's all an illusion. While the monotheisits state otherwise. How Ken can both are the same is stretching too far.

His other mistake is that stating spiritual progress is a cooperative method. It is not, especially in the spiritual traditions he talks about. Whether Zen or Tibetan Buddhism or Vedanta. These are all authoritarian structures some brutual and abusive. You either play the guru's game and accept what they say or hit the highway. You don't approach your Roshi and say "I've accomplished 'x' or that I disagree with you're statement that I did not experience satori" Obedience and acceptance are hallmarks of the far eastern paths.
His use of Adi Da and Chogyam Trungpa as realized teachers under scores is ignorance of his thesis. Both Da and Trungpa were/are notorius abusers of students, scam artists and took to even beating and have sex with the students and in many ways were amoral lechers of the worst kind. Yet Ken thinks these men are spiriutal adepts.

Because of his blinders Ken, I believe has refused to include the ethical/moral domains in his models. How else can one explain his admiration of Da and Trungpa.

In closing Ken shows himself to be broad ranging thinker and theorist but flawed in the spiritual and ethical realms. He writes about spiritual topics that only a few in any century have experienced - he most assuredly has not. Why do you think that only Deepak Chorpa endorsed this book? Not Huston Smith or any big name in spirituality - they know him.

His attempt to join spirit and science won't work, both sides have too much invested in their power structures and ideas. Not to mention being incompatible on many respects. But it is a good intro to Ken, if you like this work, you'll like his other works.

Ken sure has done lots of reading himself and has lots to draw on. However, his thesis reminds me of writings from the 19th Century, people sure used lots of words to say very little. Being able to quote many sources and place them into neat categories is not a sign of mastery.

This book is very analytical, too much so. Too much time is wasted with the meat of the book coming only in the last part and the best parts at the very end. Ken does not provide an inspired view of integrating science and religion at all. He has done lots of research and put his conclusions into a detailed four quadrant map. But his work is generally not practical, hard to get your hands around, and does not exhibit much of the real spiritual genius that a proposed integration would need. The test of the ancients, those of the Great Chain of Being he references is 'Does it grow corn?' This book does not.

This book denegrades the flat land scientific approach of the right quadrants and yet itself exists a 99% right-brain book showing little integration in the authors own mind of the conceptual spheres he is attempting to 'integrate'. Without more emphasis on the spiritual sides of the analyis the book remains a dissonant work itself.

This book is part history and part analysis. Historically this book traces Western theology and philosophy from the Enlightenment to Postmodernism and even to what Wilbur calls extreme postmodernism. As he follows this chronology Wilbur explores the strengths and weaknesses of the significant philosophical developments during that time period and explains how especially in a postmodern world we seek to a way to integrate (without lessening the autonomy of) art, science, and morality. His analysis of the short comings of other proposed integrative solutions is so good that without Wilbur's proposed solutions this book has great value. With Wilbur's solution which I think is very close to the only solution this book is priceless. The one major drawback to this book... the tone and topic of this book is essentially the same as every other Wilbur book. If you've read anything else by him then you won't be surprised by this book at all. However, that certainly didn't stop me from reading it and it won't stop me from getting other Wilbur books.