A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science Spirituality by Ken Wilber

A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science Spirituality Reviews

• 
  Adam Lauver

  As a philosophy, Integral Theory is both extremely promising and profoundly useful. Wilber's approach, which draws heavily from a field called Spiral Dynamics, offers a uniquely sensible framework in which to understand the seemingly disjointed myriad of systems of thought that have developed throughout history (the key word being "developed," considering Wilber's focus on the concept of evolution). More generally, Integral Theory itself represents a basic conceptual platform on which to formulate and propose other complex frameworks, or multidimensional maps, of human thought and behavior--and understood in this way, Wilber's proposed map is just one of potentially many. Hence the title: "A" Theory, not "The" Theory. 
  
  As an introduction to the basic platform of Integral Theory, "A Theory of Everything" is outstanding, having much to offer to anyone who actively and passionately seeks to understand the reality in which they live. Back when I first read it, it was my first real exposure to a lot of really important and powerful ideas, including (but not limited to): 
  
  1) Evolution as a process that permeates all areas of reality, not just biological; 
  2) The reintroduction of hierarchy (more specifically, holarchy, which resembles a Russian Doll more than a ladder) as a helpful way to organize reality; 
  3) Reality as being composed of four quadrants--Interior-Individual, Exterior-Individual, Interior-Collective, Exterior-Collective--where any particular phenomenon or mode in one quadrant has correlates in all the others; 
  4) The extreme dangers of reductionism (i.e., reducing reality to just one of the four quadrants and denying the significance, or even the existence, of the others); 
  5) That any given worldview or perspective is getting at some essential truth or part of reality, even if it's at the neglect of other parts, and that any serious attempt to understand the entirety of reality needs first to integrate all of these partial worldviews/truths; 
  6) That it is possible to understand human growth, both individual and collective, in the aforementioned terms of holarchy and quadrants; 
  7) The extremely important assertion that very "level" of human growth is essential to the overall "spiral"--and so our goal as integral thinkers should be to promote the health of the overall spiral, and help each other to be at healthy (as opposed to unhealthy) versions of the particular levels that we're at. 
  
  Clearly, I do feel that Wilber has a lot to offer to the nuanced, open-minded reader. My only qualms are that he's often too self-referential and not detailed enough in his assertions regarding existing experimentation and data--so often he merely says, "Read this other book I wrote," or, "This has been proven by extensive cross-cultural research." I understand that the intention was for A Theory of Everything to be a less technical introduction to the basic ideas of Wilber's integral vision, so it makes sense not to include too much detail--but his handling of that could have been a bit tighter and smoother, I think. Similarly, his shifts into New Age jargon (while something that I personally can tolerate and even appreciate) would clearly be jarring to a lot of readers (even, I would argue, a fair number on the cusp of integral thinking that simply aren't accustomed to many Eastern sentiments). Ultimately, I guess my main concern is how the book presents itself rhetorically--leaving itself open to unneeded mockery and criticism all because of these few simple issues of presentation. 
  
  But I guess that's part of the deeper issue of Integral Theory--that it's never going to be appealing or tenable to everyone... not even to a majority. Wilber got me thinking about two things (well, a lot of things, but two things in particular). For one, he got me thinking about how Integral Thinkers might possibly interface with the rest of the spiral in proactive, healthy, constructive ways--after all, we can't just give copies of A Theory of Everything to blues and greens and expect that to solve everything. But couldn't we theoretically (and this is going to sound insidious, but oh well) "plant" integral thinkers at any given level, their express goal being to present themselves as a blue or a green and interface with the inhabitants of that level in a vocabulary that they understand, encouraging them to live healthy (as opposed to unhealthy) versions of that level? Or is it as simple as finding people who are already proponents of healthy views at a particular level and helping them succeed in getting their message out there? I know it all sounds condescending (or at least it would to the people at those levels), but that's a huge part of the problem with Integral Theory: that it's really difficult to make it not seem like an affront to non-Integral thinkers (which is why rhetorical presentation is so important (might there be call for a "Rhetoric of Integral Theory" in the near future? hm), and why I can only bring myself to give A Theory of Everything 4 stars instead of 5.) 
  
  The other thing Wilber got me thinking about, of course, is my own personal development. And he himself emphasizes this at the end of the book--that the main thing that anyone should walk away from Integral Theory with is a slightly deeper ability to think integrally not only about the world, but about one's own life and personal growth. I personally am in a constant struggle to integrate and balance the various areas of my life and my self (I think many people are), so it's nice to be reminded of ways in which I can do that. Wilber ultimately suggests that not only is such integration possible and desirable, but that striving for it is absolutely essential. That kind of self-improvement angle might seem hackneyed, and it might not speak to every reader--but it does speak to me. And I'm willing to bet that it'll speak to a lot of other people too.
• 
  Morgan Blackledge

  I’m ashamed to admit it.
  
  But I think this is a really useful theory.
  
  Or rather, meta-theory.
  
  This is a re-read for me.
  
  I read it in 2000 when it was released.
  
  At the time it revolutionized my world.
  
  Now, 20 years later.
  
  It still holds water.
  
  The new age language and thinking is embarrassing.
  
  But the important ideas of the book are sound.
  
  The all quadrant model is analogous to the bio-psycho-social-systemic model of assessment we use in psychotherapy.
  
  Completely valid and useful.
  
  And the lines and levels model is also useful.
  
  The problems with ‘levels’ are obvious.
  
  Every architect of a hierarchical system puts their worldview on the top of the chart.
  
  But Wilber is honest and insightful about this issue.
  
  And his utilization of the levels model to deconstruct the culture war between pluralistic, multicultural college type coastal elites (green meme) and the conservative, religious and racially motivated populist, fly over state denizens (blue meme) is almost spooky in its prescience and timeliness.
  
  Some of the criticism in the negative reviews are that the text is too self referential.
  
  It’s a fucking summery of his work.
  
  How is it supposed to not be somewhat self referential.
  
  And the text is literally packed with references to other people’s work.
  
  • Jean Gebser
  • Don Beck
  • Abraham Maslow
  • Lawrence Kholberg
  • Carol Gilligan
  
  The list goes on and on.
  
  I just don’t get that critique.
  
  Some of the references are dated.
  
  Yes.
  
  It’s a 20 year old text.
  
  That happens.
  
  But the framework is fundamentally sound to me.
  
  A much more on point critique is that his application of the theory is always dorky for some reason.
  
  And many of his cohort are legitimate CREEPS:
  
  • Adi Da
  • Andrew Cohen
  • Genpo Roshi
  
  Yuck!!!
  
  That being said.
  
  After that pile goes in the trash.
  
  I’m still buying a lot of what KW’s serving.
  
  Great book.
  
  Why 4/5 stars ⭐️ ?
  
  As previously stated.
  
  The text is flawed, dorky and dated.
  
  Yes that rhymes.
  
  But don’t let the criticism stop you from reading the book if you’re so inclined.
  
  You may find something of enduring value in it.
• 
  mark

  Ego centric, Ethnocentric, Worldcentric – are three progressive, evolutionary worldviews, behaviors, and modes of thought that each individual, couple, group, and nation move through and towards – says Ken Wilber in A Theory Of Everything. Wilber organizes the “Kosmos, which means the patterned Whole of all existence,” into four quadrants, each delineated by a particular realm: the individual (I); the cultural (We); the scientific (It); and the social collective (Its). He shows how each of these realms progress from a simple primitive state towards a potentially highly evolved, integrated, holistic state. Woven throughout is the premise that all quadrants and levels possess the material and spiritual elements of “body, mind, soul, and spirit.”
  
  Got it? Actually what is good about reading Wilber is that his writing style is conversational and thus his “theory of everything” is understandable. What becomes clear by the end of the book, unfortunately, is just how complex of a juggernaut the current “Jihad vs. McWorld” is, in that Wilber posits that the development towards a Worldcentric worldview, in other words, compassion and sensitivity to and of all people, and a shared responsibility to, of, and for … is a stage process which cannot be accelerated by imposition or coercion. Much the same as you cannot force a child to think like an adult. You simply (not) have to be patient and let him/her/it develop at his/her/its own pace.
  
  Wilber also points out what a dangerous predicament the world is now in – what with the readily available technologies, capability of mass destruction, accessible to almost anyone (one need not be highly evolved.) It is like leaving loaded guns around a house with young children living there.
  
  This is a great read for highly evolved serious thinkers.
  
  Winter 2002
  
  PS Winter 2012
  
  Ten years have passed, and we here in America are in the beginning stages of choosing a president to lead us for the next four years. How far have we come since Osama bin Laden attacked America? Has the individual, culture, science, and social quadrants evolved? Great question. I think some have and some haven’t. To apply Wilber’s theory is then to have to question its veracity. Does it account for an individual(s) moving, not toward integration as he defines it, but backwards towards more isolation and conservative thoughts, ideas, and behaviors?
  
• 
  Marc Arlt

  This book is phenomenal. A short, easy, engaging read which has significantly shifted a paradigm for me. A brief intro to spiral dynamics but also much bigger and wider and more foundational to the development of people and culture. (It’s also a must read for every “deconstructionist” out there.)
• 
  Bradley

  What the hell was he thinking? Seriously. Not worth the time, and I would say not worth the effort, but it requires none to understand it...very simple.
• 
  McBryde

  Written against the backdrop of the post-Cold War, Blairite optimism of the early 21st century, this little book casts a beautiful vision of what an integrated political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual world could look like. Mapping stages of consciousness alongside stages of civilizational development, Wilbur’s integral theory goes a long way toward explaining the frictions that occur between people and societies at different stages of development.
  
  While Wilbur’s theory has often been unfairly dismissed as too idealistic, a closer reading reveals just how well Wilbur was able to predict the social, economic, and political unraveling of the Twenty First century’s second decade. While arguing for a multicultural, integrated holistic vision for humanity, Wilbur saves most of his criticism for the hypocritically imperial instincts of the well-meaning, conscientious, neoliberal “green” level of development. He claims that this level fails to acknowledge the importance of the previous levels as critical stages of social development and seeks instead to enforce a world-conscience that has only emerged in highly integrated Western societies upon individuals and social structures in lower levels. His criticism seems to have been vindicated by the events of the last decade.
• 
  Morenike

  I am pretty sure that I have never read any book quite like this one; I am still trying to decide if that is a good thing or not. The ideas described in the book are intriguing and often intuitive, so I enjoyed that and even intend to reflect on these more. For a book which claims to propose a theory of everything, thoughts/ scholarly work from philosophers, historians and statesmen are shockingly lacking from a few continents of the world - African & South American as well as South Asian.
• 
  Pritam Chattopadhyay

  This book continues the thought running through most of Wilber’s writings that there are three indispensable echelons of human perception, culminating in the “transpersonal,” which is a wakefulness of the universe unclouded by the ‘ego’ or the ‘normal self’.
  
  The conventional way of seeing science and religion, Wilber says, can be likened to a multistory building that represents realism. We let science tell us about the lower floors and leave the upper floors to faith.
  
  The integral or Kosmic model, on the other hand, says that there might be both a scientific and a spiritual clarification of all phenomena.
  
  Wilber’s case in point is a person in meditation hooked up to an EEG machine. The scientific gear shows the changes in the brainwave outlines, while the meditator himself reports a development of awareness and greater feelings of love and compassion.
  
  Both realities are true.
  
  Science has never managed to invalidate spiritual experience, and Wilber suggests that “deep spirituality is in part a broad science of the farther reaches of human potential.”
  
  That is, the more advanced the mysticism, the more scientific it gets
  
  Wilber labels human development as “a successive decrease in egocentrism,” meaning that our future rests on an aptitude to remove the blinkers and take a larger view of history.
  
  In this formation, a small number of people could be the leading edge that raises the center of gravity of the world’s consciousness.
  
  However, as the colour spiral suggests, this will get us nowhere unless complete credit is given to the majority who are not at such an exalted stage.
  
  It has been said that reading Wilber is like taking a ride in a spaceship.
  
  As captain he invites you to look down on Earth and try to make sense of the route of humankind’s mental and spiritual growth. The trip is an invigorating ride that will leave some giddy and others jetlagged, but for a big-picture view there are few writers better to journey with.
  
  Vibrant and thoughtful!!
  
• 
  Annika Lentso

  See on üks üsna raske lugemine ehk raamat, mida ei saa lihtsalt lugeda kui romaani. See eeldab intentsiivset mõttetööd.
  
  Eriti sümpaatne oli mulle kirjeldus sellest, et me oleme oma arengutasemetelt erinevad (inimesed sünnivad esimesse tasemesse ja millisesse nad jõuavad, sõltub väga paljudest asjaoludest, sisemistest ja välistest) ning meie arengutaset kirjeldab ennekõike võimekus erinevaid osiseid märgat ja hallata ning seda ennekõike terviklikult. Ehk siis me oleme olendid ja meie tunded, vaim, hing, teadmised ning sotsiaalsed konstruktsioonid teevad meist inimese. Lühidalt ongi seda minusugusel diletandil keeruline selgitada. Loetagu!
  
  "... see, mida sageli nimetatakse "universalismiks", on tegelikult lihtsalt imperialism: see tähendab, üks tsivilisatsioon (näiteks läänelik) püüab oma väärtusi kõigile teistele peale suruda...."
  
  "Hunington liigub "ühisosadel" põhineva universalismi suunas, mis tähendab, et arvukate kultuuridevaheliste erinevuste tunnustamise ja austamise kõrval tuleb kalliks pidada ka neid asju, mida me inimolenditena sellel väga väikesel planeedil elades jagame; see on terviklik unversalism, mida minagi innukalt pooldan..."
  
  Ehk siis see raamat räägib üldisest inimeseks olemisest, arengutest eneses ja ühiskonnas erinevatel tasanditel ja kirjeldab põgusalt ka seda, miks üks või teine väga hea algatus ühiskonnas sureb.
  
• 
  AttackGirl

  Utter and complete BS. What a waste of beautiful white pages, how many trees had to die and people get leukemia from the Paper Mills to produce this ridiculousness.
  
  Sure if he wants to believe in the made up story of Santa clause to be his god but do not suppose that Santa fits into anything other than as the creator said; a completely made up tale. No not my god and not any theory of anything other than self indulgent BS.
• 
  Ivan Dogan

  3. 5
  +
  Interesting ideas, Wilber is offering mediation between relativism and dogmatism, modernism and postmodernism, etc...
  -
  New age vocabulary, some conclusions are brought without clear explanation...
• 
  Joel

  Loaned to me by a friend about three years ago, I'm re-reading it now (2020). I'd have given it three-and-a-half stars, if possible. I remember originally feeling there was a lot of interesting & good conceptualization in the book, but that the presentation was rather glib & formulaic.
• 
  Denis Vasilev

  Идея Теории всего и всех квадрантов, всех уровней хорошая, но с 2000 года все таки книга устаревает и некоторые проблемы которые Уилбер решает уже не актуальны. Книга выглядит не как целостное работа, а как продолжение какого-то более раннего спора
• 
  Caitlin Ball

  The four quadrants that this theory of everything is organized with leaves it lacking and incomplete. It repeatedly attempts to turn hard sciences into religious or spiritual concepts while neglecting well known hard facts and data.
  I read this book in parts and reflected on each as I went. The first quarter of it was littered with audacious and upsetting comments. I wondered as I read it why he didn’t want boomers reading his book, as he repeatedly insulted them. A thing which would encourage anyone to put the book down. Doing this in the first quarter of the book risked losing them as readers or getting automatic knee jerk bad reviews. It left me curious as to why he chose to do so. That being said, I expect the majority of reviews are polarized being very bad or very good. As many people won’t try to pick apart a book written by a knowledgeable individual who has had respected schooling, for fear of appearing uneducated or uninformed. So, either they were insulted and gave a bad review, or they wanted to look intelligent and gave it a good review. As a result, I decided I would see it through to the end and give it the fairest review I could.
  The first quarter of this book:
  First, separating generations with titles and applying blanket behaviors to everyone within that generation only lends to disrespect between the eras and furthers the spread of ageism on both sides. Reflecting poorly on the writer. While there is a large gap between people’s skill sets throughout time, to suggest that everyone from an entire generation is narcissistic or egocentric is arrogant and even suggestive of the very behavior it suggests of others. If narcissism is tearing down others while building yourself up, then that is exactly what was done by the writer here. The writer also neglects to point out that there is a behavioral cycle involved with narcissistic personalities. That being a person complimenting or idealizing their victims to get what they want, this then leads to the devaluation of those people when they no longer get what they want, and then the discarding of the person while acting like a victim, before the recovery and calm, which leads back to idealization. It is a rare disorder which results in a person burning through other individuals at an unhealthy rate, and it is more commonly seen in people from large, populated areas.
  I am not a boomer, but my teachers and mentors were, and a narcissistic personality type doesn’t fit them at all, neither do most of the descriptions of boomers made by this writer. The skills in each generation are varied based on each person’s personal experience and skill set, which has more to do with where they were born than when. These varying skills are all necessary throughout all levels of society, and therefore should all be respected equally.
  Insulting entire generations and applying imagined behavioral sets to entire masses of people only serves to heighten tensions between the generational groups, separating our communities through a thinly veiled guise of identity politics.
  The personality trait described of people feeling they know better than others is seen in every generation, not just boomers. Most title this as people having an A type personality. While some people can be condescending and arrogant, most of the people who portray this behavior only do it temporarily based around their personal skill sets. It is just basic logic, a farmer will have different skillsets than a nuclear engineer, or a programmer, and the programmer might not listen to the farmers advice on game building and would probably never hire the farmer since they don’t have the same abilities. Just as the farmer might not hire the programmer who has never worked on a farm and doesn’t have the skills or education it requires.
  While there are very specific instances where the accusation that some boomers might narcissistic might be valid, accusing all of them of it is dramatic to say the least. If a fifth grader failed a math quiz you wouldn’t assume all fifth graders were bad at math. Absolutes like that are almost never true, but they are used quite a bit in this book.
  *(Tangent: That the entire first quarter of this book seems geared towards insulting the boomer generation, makes me wonder who upset him. While I understand there is controversy from the later generation saying boomers need to step aside or step down for the later generations to take over, the later generations offer no means for how their elders should care for themselves or pay their bills once they do. Many probably don’t even realize how expensive medical bills become as a person ages. While offering no solutions it seems they just want our elders to vanish into the either or die, rather than continuing to provide for themselves or their families as they’ve been doing for their whole lives. To cry out that it is unfair while offer no alternative solution only identifies the problem. Which is not that the older generation hasn’t stepped down or stepped aside, but that they wouldn’t be able to survive in our capitalist society if they did. While in other countries and cultures it is usually the younger generation who help care for the older one. The very structure of our society is segmented and has led to an ever-growing antisocial society. Zoning laws have separated housing from businesses, making it difficult for the average person to start their own company because of it. The cost of running a business and owning a home is prohibitively expensive and America is the only country that structure’s itself this way. These zoning laws have led to increased inflation and a massive lack of Ma’ and Pa’ shops everywhere. Sadly, it has also led to a decrease in American made products, and a decrease in quality of products and foods sold.
  My point is, the problem isn’t boomers like the identity politics in this book would suggest, but the fractured state brought to our communities from the oppressive zoning laws that were implemented when I was a kid. Zoning laws which caused many people who lived in the same building as their businesses to have to choose between their home or their business. If it was possible for the later generations to start clothing shops, computer parts stores, or restaurants in their homes, it would create more competition and less monopolies in the workplace, and anyone who needed a job would be able to start one, affordably, right where they lived. Honestly, the effect these laws had on our communities is the worst crime of all. We don’t live where we sleep, we don’t spend time with each other, and as a result our people have become extremely susceptible to identity politics, turning their own elders and neighbors into Other, and Them, rather than Us.
  The boomer’s existence is not a problem. The oppressive laws keeping them from caring for themselves and keeping our younger generations out of the workplace is the problem, and it’s one we can elect to change by getting involved in politics and pushing for it.)
  Second Quarter:
  Talks about sexist views from both ends, at least this part was gone through with an unbiased eye. It also makes me wonder if this entire book is tied together through identity politics.
  Third Quarter:
  Gets into some philosophical viewpoints which don’t really segue fluidly, making it jarring to read.
  This section too is riddled with bias flaws.
  For example, Figure 4-3: matter within physics within biology within psychology, within theology. All contained within spirit. Counting science on the lower floors and mysticism on the top floors, suggesting the importance of one over the other. Though this is a completely linear view, and these levels are based exclusively on the perspective of the writer who is highly influenced by his own personal beliefs.
  While the scientific theory of everything is based not on levels of importance or bias but on balance in the perceivable and non-perceivable world around us. Psychology and biology when looked at from this stance can then be viewed as one and the same and therefor can be found on the same level. Using SPECT scans over the last 30 years leading psychologists have found a massive link between physical brain health and mental illness, “We are not dealing with mental health issues, but we are dealing with brain health issues; and this one idea has changed everything.” ~Daniel G. Amen, MD.
  Emotion is a physical reaction to circumstances taking the form of hormones which can be influenced by the nutrients our bodies take in as well as our past experiences and current surroundings. Though there is another element to it. Nikola Tesla said all living things produce different frequency waves, and that these can be affected to control other people. Implying that by influencing the frequency of the mind we can change our behaviors. He never shared his research on this beyond that point, but the science of what he said has proven to be true. The plasma in our minds—much like lightning—produces frequency waves, and doctors have begun using Electroconvulsive therapy in an attempt to repair, or jump start damaged minds.
  While this four-segment theory is interesting it is still lacking. To create a unified theory of everything you would need a myriad array of backgrounds or understandings of various areas in science. Including quantum field theories, theoretical particle physics, supersymmetry, theories on gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, general relativity, quantum gravity, programing, chemistry, and an understanding of the multiverse theory, with respect we could very well create another figure for this.
  Figure QET (for quantum entanglement theory 😉): Chemistry, leads into electricity, leads into magnetism, leads into electromagnetism, leads into particle physics, leads into quantum physics, leads into relativity, leads into quantum mechanics, leads into particle physics, etc.
  The point is there are no real levels higher or lower and if you started at relativity rather them chemistry eventually the spherical nature of how one leads into the next would eventually bring you back to chemistry again. Therefore, they are all equally important because this suggests that they are all part of a greater whole. Understanding this fractal way of thinking is key to creating a strong basis for a unified theory of everything. But the levels of this four segment theory create a lack of balance, rather than an implementation of it.
  Later this is touched upon again, “An atom is part of a molecule. If you destroy the molecule the atom can still exist but if you destroy the atom the molecule is also destroyed.” This analogy while it might work in certain scenarios does not work across the board. It’s a broad generality. Like saying If you destroy a hand a brain will survive, but if you destroy a brain the hand won’t survive. It may be true there are some parts we rely on more than others, but the brain works in tandem with the heart, the liver, the lungs. The job of each of these is equally as important as the next. It takes each of them to create the whole…
  At this point I must address how the writer tries to complicate the straightforward practice of science through imaginative correlations in an attempt to make science resemble religion. We CAN define Science. It has a clear and definite definition. “n.1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.” Science is a result of knowledge obtained from using the scientific method. “A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.” Most of the time it starts with a question, followed by research, followed by a hypothesis, followed by testing, followed by the recording of the resulting knowledge, which either answers or does not answer the original question. It is based in facts, not faith. To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “The good thing about science is it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Whether narrow or broad all sciences attempt to follow theses steps at least in spirit. For theoretical sciences it is merely a matter of calculating the domino effect or determining the cause and most likely outcome based on gathered data. In this area they usually lead up to the theory due to an inability to run tests, thus the name theoretical. Theoretical sciences, is therefor incomplete science, allowing for speculation and guesswork, without committing to any one result due to an inability to know for sure.
  As for mathematics being an interior reality, we can easily argue this, by pointing out the results of weight and measurements. Without math, chemistry would be a volatile science. We would be unable to repeatedly replicate results without it. It is the most unforgiving of sciences based in cold hard facts. Try making a recipe while neglecting the measurements and see how your cake turns out. Numbers are a parasitic representation of physical things when looked at in these terms. We can see their effect and use other objects to fill the space they represent. 1 cup, is always 1 cup whether it is full of air, or water, or peanut butter. Because it is a solid unit of measurement. We could go deeper by looking at the deeper math’s like that in computers, which result in us having computers period. But the idea is the same. Applications of math result in observable physical effects in the real world, which is how we know it’s real, and not just a concept.
  Next, I’d like to address this comment, “Religion and science will never get along until religion and liberalism kiss and make up.” Religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Liberalism is a political or moral philosophy embodying the wiliness to respect or accept behaviors or opinions from different viewpoints. Many of the settlers who came to America left their homes to escape religious persecution. Many of them were being attacked and oppressed and even blamed for the black plagues existence under the guise God being angry at them for following the wrong religion. The separation of church and state was a means to make sure these people kept their rights to worship as they saw fit and to make sure they weren’t ruled by a system which favored one religion over another. Without it they might have very well ended up in the same oppressive circumstances they’d been trying to escape.
  Why it is suggested that science should open itself up to religion is beyond me. Opening a system based on facts up to faith can only damage the knowledge accumulated over time and cause it to become bias. Though I do agree that religion would benefit from opening itself up to science. “I firmly believe that if science proves scriptures wrong, then the scriptures should be changed. The Buddha himself says that understanding must come through investigation, logic, and reasoning. Not just faith.” – Rajiv Mehrotra Dalai Lama
  Following the philosophies of Socrates, and Plato and their teachings in metaphysics we can gather that we are a part of nature just as it is a part of us. Though we don’t need to theorize this, it has already been seen in practice. The importance of individual creatures for the health of the environment has been seen in practice in Yellow Stone National Park, when the wolves in the area went extinct and the ecosystem began falling apart. Humans intervened by flying wolves in from Canada to return balance to the environment. This is the most practical example I can give to show how creatures and the environment are equally interdependent. For while the creatures could not survive without their environment, it too could not survive without them.
  Forth Quarter:
  I was pulled back in and captivated by that quote from the Dalai Lama, which was then followed by something I’ve said a lot. The reason I don’t follow any religion, because it has caused more war and conflict than any other thing throughout history… Unfortunately, it lost me soon after with fear mongering over the advancement in technology and the dark side of human nature. The truth of it is American’s used to be known for their ingenuity, and now other countries think our school systems a joke, and call us, ‘Stupid Americans.’ My most recent experience with this was while I was in South Korea during the start of Covid and a man asked me, “Why are American’s so stupid?” He asked this because protests were going on in the U.S. over mask mandates. Many of these protests were enacted by hired actors. I know because some of my acting friends told me they were offered jobs doing this, and I warned them against gathering in large groups. The rest of the world had a full view as our people emptied shopping stores in mass panics and argued against implementations set in place to protect society, having little to no faith that their government would protect them. If anything, this is a perfect example as to why the education of our people is critical to the survival of our society. Which brings me back to the fear mongering in the book. It seems the author is trying to scare people away from educating themselves, suggesting that it will only end in devastation. While in truth knowledge can be the birth of wisdom, understanding and reasoning when implemented correctly. While it is possible that educating our people could possibly result in bad things happening someday, it is far truer that neglecting the education of the people will result in far more damaging consequences overall. Proper education had proven to lower aggression in individuals and is usually the first thing to go when a society collapse.
  Ironically, regarding the part stating all views are trues… where string theory is concerned, they are. So theoretically, that is a possibility. Meaning that even the things I disagree with in this book are true somewhere, even if it isn’t here…
  I agree with the idea that religion will never fully go away, but for a different and more scientific reason, because much of what it offers is actually beneficial to our mind on a chemical level. Community involvement releases oxytocin, going to church implements a regular routine that promotes healthy habits and reduces overall stress levels, and mass camaraderie, a similar thing which binds people as ‘we’ rather than ‘them,’ allows religion to outlive most societal structures. That’s also only part of what makes religion a chemical symphony to our brains making it feel good and right to those involved.
  Conclusion:
  It promoted critical thinking, and therefore was... okay.
• 
  Wilmington

  I acquired the free sample on Kindle to learn more about spiral dynamics. That included most of the first two chapters (out of seven) and that was a very interesting summary of the concept. Unfortunately the rest of the book is just ramble, repetitions and hogwash, interspersed with the author trying to advertise his other books and boasting about the reviews he got for them. The main purpose of this book is to explain how to reach the 7th and 8th levels of the spiral dynamics, which Ken Wilber claims has only been reached by 1.1% of the population (without specifying clearly if that is in the USA, in the developed world or globally).
  
  In chapter 3, his integral vision for the world at large starts by quoting data about the world population that is hopelessly outdated. Wilber quotes figures claiming that 70% of the world population cannot read (when it was only 14% in 2016) and 50% is suffering from malnutrition (actually 10.7% in 2016 according to World Hunger). Based his claim that Europeans make up 21% of the global population the data must date from around 1965. It's only around 10% now. Of course the book was published in 2001, but the situation then was still a far cry from that in 1965.
  
  I have since read other authors about spiral dynamics. It appears that I am at the yellow (integral) meme, after passing through an early scientific and philosophical education (orange meme), becoming an Atheist (doing away with the blue meme), then turning into an ecologist and egalitarian (green meme). I have superseded these levels to reach a more global understanding of human development. This may it all the disappointing when I read this book, as Ken Wilber claims to have reached the yellow or even turquoise memes, but his vision of life is strongly tinted by that of a Christian trying to salvage his beliefs as if some blue meme just wouldn't let go. He even goes to make up four new levels above turquoise, which he calls psychic, subtle, causal and nondual. Just the names are gibberish. But he does it so that he can accommodate religion, soul and spirit and profess that his new type of spirituality is a higher level of enlightenment to all other levels of development reached by others humans! He even compares his writings to those of the Indian guru Sri Aurobindo.
  
  Here is an example of what Wilber writes (p. 77): "If you look at figure 4-4, you will see that the individual levels of development stop at vision-logic and the centaur (yellow/turquoise). The reason figure 4-4 does not contain the higher, transpersonal, supramental waves of consciousness (such as soul and spirit) is that this figure simply represents average evolution up to the present, and thus it does not show the higher waves of superconscious unfolding (although individuals can develop into these higher waves on their own). The claim of the great wisdom traditions is that there are indeed higher stages of consciousness development, so that we have available to us not just matter and body and mind, but also soul and spirit."
  
  On page 79, Wilber refers to another book he wrote called "Sense and Soul": "The average believer, the critics said, would never give up the myths and stories that constitute perhaps 95 percent of most forms of spirituality. Not only did the professional critics hammer this point, so did most of my friends who tried giving the book to, say, their parents, only to have their parents shake their heads: “What, no resurrection of Jesus? No Moses and the covenant? No facing Mecca each day in prayer? This isn’t my religion.” And so on. Well, guilty. There is no doubt that I focused almost entirely on deep spiritual experiences (of the psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual realms), and ignored the much more common religious dimension of translative spirituality (or narrow religion)."
  
  In short, Ken Wilber hijacked the concept of spiral dynamics developed by Clare Graves, Don Beck and Chris Cowan in order to promote his own ludicrous religious confabulations. He was only one step short of starting his own religious sect. I wish I could ask for a refund!
• 
  Timo

  Wilber seems not to understand that his hierarchies are not fixed properties, but subjective ratings of states of being. It's cultural evolution all over again...
• 
  Sutar Djohar

  Sikap optimis merupakan sebuah energi yang kuat untuk memicu ke arah positif atau kemajuan yang pesat. Beruntunglah seseorang yang selalu berpikir optimis, sebab apapun yang ia pikir merupakan energi untuk menciptakan sesuatu.
  
  Saya umpamakan seorang penderita penyakit akan lebih cepat sembuh atau memiliki harapan hidup lebih lama bila menghadapi penyakitnya dengan sikap optimis. Hal ini dikarenakan, penyakit bukan sekadar terkait dengan keadaan fisik, namun juga mental dan spiritual, sehingga pengobatan harus dilakukan secara menyeluruh.
  
  "Seyogyanya cara pandang terhadap persoalan di dunia,” kata Ken Wilber, penulis buku ini.
  
  Pendapat itu dituangkan dalam sebuah kalimat bahwa dunia ini berjalan dalam harmoni karena setiap bagian berhubungan satu sama lain, yang belakangan, dibuktikan oleh teori dawai atau juga dikenal dengan teori induk dalam dunia fisika. Sebuah pandangan yang mengingatkan kita pada ide bangsa Yunani kuno tentang Kosmos, yakni keseluruhan eksistensi yang mencakup alam fisik, ruh, pikiran, dan jiwa.
  
  Diterbitkannya hasil pemikiran , Ken Wilber, yang sering dianggap sebagai filsuf dan spiritualis paling brilian masa kini, menganjurkan praktik integral dan pengembangan batin demi mencapai kesehatan seluruh masyarakat. Dengan cara demikian, berbagai tingkat kesadaran masyarakat dianggap memiliki peran dan tugas penting yang tak bisa dilewatkan begitu saja tanpa menimbulkan akibat buruk bagi diri pribadi dan masyarakat.
  
  Sebuah karya tertulis yang dapat difahami dengan mudah, menjawap persoalan-persoalan yang timbul dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, hingga pendapat Wilber ini bisa untuk menjadi referensi.
  
  Pemahaman dalam membaca buku ini menggunakan alur maju(lewati per bab) agar dapat memahami apa yang tertuang dalam hasil pikiran di buku ini.
  
  Secara umum buku ini mengupas masalah manusia dan kehidupan, dimana faktor manusia itu sendiri dan faktor kehidupan yang saling keterkaitan.
  
  Buku ini cocok untuk semua kalangan.
  
  
  Kekasih pujaan jiwaku
  Aku selalu berpikir optimis untuk dapat melalui semua urusan kita
  Tak ada lelah dan tak ada hentinya selalu berpikir positif
  
  Kekasihku
  Hari-hari belakangan semua energi kita terkuras dan jika tidak ada optimisme
  Tak kuasa aku tuk menegakkan badan alias berdiri
  
  Detik, menit, jam terus maju membentuk hari, minggu dan bulan yang tidak dapat kita ulang
  Aku tak sanggup untuk menghentikan waktu wahai kekasih hatiku
  
  Jika aku bisa menghentikan
  Apalagi memutar waktu mundur
  Alangkah spektakulernya
  
  Untuk kekasih hatiku
  Semoga engkau sabar dalam mendampingiku sebagai bayang diriku
  
  
• 
  Håkon Raadal

  Noen fine idéer, mange dumme analyser.
• 
  Christopher Bennett

  I thought Wilber did at best an incomplete job of fulfilling the extraordinary aspirations of this title. Admittedly, his TOE could only be a philosophical (metaphysical) foundation rather than natural (scientific) one, but even in this context I was left with only glimmers of a truly compete theoretical structure. The assumption that Wilber builds his theory upon- a "Great Chain of Being and Knowing- from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit"- in his own terms, holarchy, is a good one, but I do not thing he ultimately connects the dots between these big-picture ideas and a true (testable) theory. At best, he is testing out some new conceptual frameworks upon others could build smaller, more testable theories.
  
  All that said, Wilber's does propose one pretty novel and useful heuristic/explanation in this book, and that is to divide up our entire society's memetic pool into a sort of 'evolutionary' pyramid, from first-order consciousness to second-order consciousness (although there are many sub-tiers). Wilber does a compelling job of constructing and diagramming a sort of 'expanded Maslow's hierarchy', one that goes beyond just creative actualization to even higher integral, systems-thinking oriented tiers, which sit on the second tier: "As examples Beck and Cowan mention items that include Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere, the growth of transpersonal psychology, chaos and complexity theories, cybernetics, integral-holistic systems thinking, Gandhi's and Mandela's pluralistic integration. However, second-tier thinking has to emerge in the face of much resistance from first-tier thinking In fact, a version of the postmodern meme, with its relativism and pluralism, has actively fought the emergence of more integrative and holistic thinking." I think this is a really interesting lens which explains a sort of revolution in scientific, cultural, educational, governmental institutions at the moment, and although it is not a 'TOE', it is with this explanation that Wilber comes closest to tying together all the threads in the title.
• 
  Jason Carter

  The good news is that I've suffered through this book on your behalf, and offered a review that will preclude, one hopes, you from having to do so, as well. The bad news is that my review is apparently not a worthwhile endeavor, because early in the text we're told that "nothing in this book will convince you that a T.O.E. (theory of everything) is possible, unless you already have a touch of turquoise coloring your cognitive palette (and then you will think, on many a page, 'I already knew that! I just didn't know how to articulate it')."
  
  In other words, I don't agree with Wilber's TOE simply because I haven't yet evolved to a sufficiently pastel-colored level of consciousness in order to understand it. I'm stuck in 'first-tier' thinking somewhere along the lines of blue (Truth Force) or perhaps orange (Strive Drive). There's still hope for me, though, if I understand Wilber correctly, because just as the human race is evolving through these waves of consciousness, so, too, does each individual, though some of you are doomed never to progress beyond the first tier.
  
  There were some useful observations and insights within but most of it was evolutionary psychobabble. Lots of waves and spirals and integral holarchies. Don't waste your time.
• 
  Steve

  I am ambivalent. There's no denying Wilber's prodigious intellect and ambitious vision. But there's also no denying his own egotism (despite his taking down of narcissistic boomers). Has anyone ever written the same book so many times? Has anyone ever cited himself so many times in the course of a short book? I like you, Ken, and will revisit No Boundary and Brief History of Everything. But those might, in the end, suffice.
• 
  Tim Nowotny

  What a bad book. Though I can find some wisdom in its initial hypothesis ( a bit like an extended pyramid of needs), it was just bad.
  This begins right at the first pages, in which the author goes into a lengthy discussion about the hotness of academia topics right now. In the second half of this book it looses its balance totally by discussing multiple representation options for systems and forgets the difference between map and country...
• 
  Murray Brown

  Excellent overview of Wilber's "Integral Theory" that synthesizes evolutionary psychology, spirituality, Western & Eastern philosophies, and various worldviews into a holistic (indeed, holonic!) framework for human development. It covers a broad territory referring to other works (most notably his own) for more substantive and detailed information; this is my one complaint.
• 
  Joe Rafter

  Deep post-modern leadership
  
  Be prepared to stop on each page to digest the density of Ken Wilber and Integral Thinking. This is very powerful stuff that will leave you a little lost at times. The concepts of spiral dynamics and 4 quadrant evolution is ground breaking and has changed my professional and personal life.
• 
  Eugene Pustoshkin

  Хорошее общее введение в интегральный подход Кена Уилбера, содержит материал, полезный как для новичков, так и «ветеранов» интегрализма.
• 
  Kelly

  Not my cup of tea si'l vous plaît.
• 
  Domagoj Bodlaj

  So many concepts so abstract one doubts there is any reality to them. Classification upon classification. Granted, I only read half of it. It just wasn't worth it
• 
  Elizabeth

  I have never hated a book more.