I read the brief introduction, and was thoroughly unimpressed. Maybe there’s a kernel of truth somewhere but you’d think a brief introduction would make it more visible… saying “scientism” over and over, dismissing reductionism as calling things “nothing but” their components over and over… apparently he has split things we can know up into 2x2=4 parts, and “Yet in erasing left-hand interiors, modernity also erased meaning, purpose, and significance from our view of the universe, life, and ourselves. For meaning, purpose, and significance, subjective value, and all other qualitative distinctions are interior left-hand events. Gone was any sense of value or purpose for life. Instead humans began to see themselves merely as meaningless blobs of protoplasm, adrift on a tiny speck of dust in a remote unchartered corner of one of countless billions of galaxies.”
It seems science stole Ken Wilber’s rainbows. Bad scientists! Or wait, I mean:
“scientists (or better, scientismists)”
In fairness, maybe it’s just Roger Walsh (the author of the introduction) that failed to impress me enough to get me to read Wilber.
I read the brief introduction, and was thoroughly unimpressed. Maybe there’s a kernel of truth somewhere but you’d think a brief introduction would make it more visible… saying “scientism” over and over, dismissing reductionism as calling things “nothing but” their components over and over… apparently he has split things we can know up into 2x2=4 parts, and “Yet in erasing left-hand interiors, modernity also erased meaning, purpose, and significance from our view of the universe, life, and ourselves. For meaning, purpose, and significance, subjective value, and all other qualitative distinctions are interior left-hand events. Gone was any sense of value or purpose for life. Instead humans began to see themselves merely as meaningless blobs of protoplasm, adrift on a tiny speck of dust in a remote unchartered corner of one of countless billions of galaxies.”
It seems science stole Ken Wilber’s rainbows. Bad scientists! Or wait, I mean:
“scientists (or better, scientismists)”
In fairness, maybe it’s just Roger Walsh (the author of the introduction) that failed to impress me enough to get me to read Wilber.