Customer Reviews

The Reflexive Universe : Evolution of Consciousness

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Arthur Young was one of the most original and penetrating minds of the 20th century, as well as being a gifted and provocative teacher, who had a major influence on my thinking. Primarily a cosmologist, interested in the big picture and the foundations of knowlege, he disciplined himself and tested his insights by spending 17 years on the design and invention of the vertical take-off helicopter. His wide-ranging explorations into the foundations of the natural sciences, as well as the great spiritual and esoteric traditions, led him to formulate an integrative evolutionary cosmology that will, I believe, turn out to have a lasting influence and value.

In this book, Young describes a "Theory of Process" which takes Spirit into matter and back out again. It is elegantly written, the prose is effortless and along the way he gives insights into the entire spectrum of science, philosophy and metaphysics. Young has been recognized as a genius on the level of Einstein, but I can tell you, Young's theory is far more coherent. You know how a genius can make a remark on a subject, just toss off a remark, that just opens your eyes because it is so succinctly phrased? This book is like that. I consider it to be a work of genius, highly recommended, if you are into the Big Picture.

Its a shame there aren't more penetrating and expansive minds like Young's. He makes one of the best arguments for teleology in nature that I have read. The arguments between religious fundamentalists with their hopeless textual literalism and arrogant scientific materialists shouldn't keep the rest of us from seeing a reasonable and cohesive synthesis between the physical and metaphysical worlds.

Truly an all-encompassing work that bridges the gaps between such diverse fields as: biology, physics and psychology.

Anyone who can expertly discuss both helicopters and consciousness deserves a read!

I found a 76' Delcourt copy with "geometry" as part of it in a breakfast cafe in Arkansas for $1.25, it was held together with a rubber band but complete and intact. I would equate this moment in time in my life to John Smith finding the Morman Bible, except this find actually had value to me and humanity. This book permanantly affected my thought process relative to so many dynamics I encounter daily in life. In my top 3 non fiction books of all time.

I am a rational individual, but I'm not a committed "rationalist" nor a materialist. I believe that the fundamental question here regarding the metaphysical status of consciousness is a meaningful topic to discuss. I mention this so that I'm not accused of a priori bias against spiritual/religious thought.

That being said, I found this book to be largely an example of sloppy reasoning, unjustified conclusions, bad science, and equivocation. I'll be fair: I found the first few chapters interesting, where the author speculates about the quanta of light. I don't regret reading that far: he seemed to be level-headed, he seemed to more or less inviting the reader to do some meaningful speculation with him.

Nevertheless there were hints right in the beginning that he's somewhat pompous: it's ridiculous, and desperate, for one man to think that he can figure out an ultimate scientific truth about the nature of our existence - especially (and as is the usual case with newagers) without undergoing the necessary peer-reviewed scrutiny, if not within scientific literature then at least with philosophical.

The desperation, I think, is played out in how the book quickly develops, where, in my view, the author goes off the deep end and descends into a nebulous, pseudo-scientific quagmire of meaningless word manipulation. Call it consciousness, call it number, call it matter, call it soul, call it what you like: but it's just no good to assume that there is one metaphysical thing that the universe is and then go about arbitrarily unifying all other categories presented in our thinking and in scientific analysis on the basis of that preferred category. We can see this played out time and time again in crackpot thinkers. Theories of everything are dime a dozen. It amazes me how an apparently accomplished person in the field of theoretical and applied science can produce such dribble. Moreover, I find it amazing that he thinks he ideas are so original, constantly referring to "his theory" as if he weren't ultimately parroting other new age esoteric views.

This is the last book, I think, I'll ever buy which comes from the new age sector. You're much better off buying a work of actual critical and responsible philosophy, be they representing Vedanta or Buddhism or whatever. And that is just what this book is not. This book is uncritical and irresponsible.

For a better presentation on some esoteric speculation on the nature of light, get Arthur Zajonc's "Catching the Light." The book under present review will be a waste of your time.