ARA Review by Peter Benton 1 of In It Together
Moderator: Official Reviewer Representatives
-
Peter Benton 1
- In It Together VIP
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 08 Apr 2024, 09:35
- Bookshelf Size: 0
ARA Review by Peter Benton 1 of In It Together
[Following is an OnlineBookClub.org ARA Review of the book, In It Together.]
In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.
The book opens with examples of societal evils but states that it is not a political book; instead, it argues that they can be traced back and addressed on an individual level by a set of conclusive philosophical deductions resulting from an analysis of the human condition, and that are universally applicable and valid independent of creed or religious persuasion. At its foundation is a dissection of the components of the state of being and then a reassembly in ways that result in a better self capable of "true love" and inner contentment. With this ambition, it can be categorized as a self-help book as it ultimately proceeds with a number of prescriptions of how to become one with the inner peace of one's true self by shedding and disengaging from whatever interferes with it, thereby improving the world.
The author proceeds to dissect the individual existence into a "true self" and any number of external attributes. The true self as described in this book is synonymous with "consciousness" or "soul". Although the book claims to address readers regardless of spiritual persuasion, those without esoteric inclinations or religious beliefs of any kind should stop reading right there. The problem at heart is that the author declares this "true self = consciousness" as an inalterable constant across a person's life history ("oneness across time"), and gets carried away in speaking of a "oneness across space", i.e. an interpersonal identity that enables true love to anything that has that consciousness. Conflating these ideas with the theory of relativity (i.e. time dilation rendering time obsolete and by that the distinction between your past, present, and future self across time, and length contraction approaching the collapse of a space dimension rendering the distinction between individual consciousnesses a mere matter of reference frame) feels like an escalation into a fever dream where the imprimatur of empirically solid physics is forced onto a journey into a spiritual cloud, bordering on the absurd.
The biggest problem with this book is its avaricious ambition: It claims to provide proofs by melting metaphysical concepts into cherry-picked fragments of unrelated scientific concepts with a similar feel to them, and by a technique all too well known from the sermons of preachers and the bible: expounding on a proposition by endless litanies of analogies, then claiming the matter is established by sheer plausibility. There is no comparative investigation of alternate views here, let alone hard empirical considerations. The author employs the arguments that lead him to where he wants to end up simply because the result is beautiful.
To pick up on a central fault line in an exemplary fashion: the dichotomy between the true self = consciousness and the external self that is worn like a dress (ambitions, job, position, money, pretty much anything that is subject to change). Even memory is stated to be external to consciousness. This is where the need for axiomatic belief in an immaterial soul comes in. An entirely different concept of consciousness makes memory an absolutely integral part of consciousness. The fact that it is not stable over time means necessarily that there is no unalterable true self = consciousness, but that it is subject to change like all external attributes. Moreover, these attributes can feedback on the state of consciousness. The dichotomy the author claims to lie at the very foundation of the whole tractate remains conjectural and is not, and probably cannot be stringently argued.
When the author later introduced terms like "divine" and "false idols" (= factors external to one's true self) I realized that this is a covert sermon disguised as a stringent philosophical analysis of more general validity. As in any religious belief, we encounter the immaterial at the center of it all (spirit, true self etc.). Again, the author superficially borrows ill-digested concepts of quantum physics to question the materiality of the world we perceive, thereby suggesting a form of pan-universalism of a greater consciousness, which we are part of, permeating the universe. It doesn't take much to realize the author talks about God. At best, an actual physicist will react with befuddlement, at worst with a headache. Once the self-help part kicks in, we encounter a concoction of concepts of Eastern Zen philosophy and Taoism, advising of letting go of a whole roster of concerns to achieve the inner peace of one's true self, to simply stop fighting between the true self and the externals. In this context to let go of the concept of "evil" (the true self doesn't recognize it apparently) is a prelude to a "love thy neighbor" prescription in different words.
In general, the author seems to be infatuated with the conflation of disparate concepts and condensing the existence of conscious life and the universe generally into some sort of "oneness". In that, it is highly reductionist.
In summary, this is a religious sermon to condense complicated and mysterious matters into beautifully simple concepts and make them appear more profound than they are by extensive enumeration of examples and analogies. In that, it is not economical with the time of readers. Once you get the drift, you can skip over the text; you know what comes next. In the universe of self-help books, it does not stand out as particularly original, nor are the prescriptions for self-improvement likely to impact the ills of society introduced early on. It strikes me as a very American book borne of a libertarian-leaning view wherein all societal ills rest solely on the shoulders of individuals and can all be successfully addressed on that level. In a way, one could classify it as a form of the recently popular "trickle-down" philosophies, or perhaps "trickle-up" in this case. The validity of such beliefs is not exactly empirically supported.
I give this book a star recognizing that there are probably quite a few less analytically inclined troubled souls (who believe they have one) who derive solace from it. After all, the conclusions are tempting. Who doesn't want to achieve inner peace?
Another star for providing some food for intellectual sparring and an engaging, eloquent writing style with a clear organization and story flow.
Stars subtracted for: (i) lack of stringency and depth, (ii) not good use of readers' time, and (iii) lack of originality.
All in all, mobilizing all my goodwill, 2 stars out of 5 for this book from me.
***
View In It Together on Bookshelves
In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.
The book opens with examples of societal evils but states that it is not a political book; instead, it argues that they can be traced back and addressed on an individual level by a set of conclusive philosophical deductions resulting from an analysis of the human condition, and that are universally applicable and valid independent of creed or religious persuasion. At its foundation is a dissection of the components of the state of being and then a reassembly in ways that result in a better self capable of "true love" and inner contentment. With this ambition, it can be categorized as a self-help book as it ultimately proceeds with a number of prescriptions of how to become one with the inner peace of one's true self by shedding and disengaging from whatever interferes with it, thereby improving the world.
The author proceeds to dissect the individual existence into a "true self" and any number of external attributes. The true self as described in this book is synonymous with "consciousness" or "soul". Although the book claims to address readers regardless of spiritual persuasion, those without esoteric inclinations or religious beliefs of any kind should stop reading right there. The problem at heart is that the author declares this "true self = consciousness" as an inalterable constant across a person's life history ("oneness across time"), and gets carried away in speaking of a "oneness across space", i.e. an interpersonal identity that enables true love to anything that has that consciousness. Conflating these ideas with the theory of relativity (i.e. time dilation rendering time obsolete and by that the distinction between your past, present, and future self across time, and length contraction approaching the collapse of a space dimension rendering the distinction between individual consciousnesses a mere matter of reference frame) feels like an escalation into a fever dream where the imprimatur of empirically solid physics is forced onto a journey into a spiritual cloud, bordering on the absurd.
The biggest problem with this book is its avaricious ambition: It claims to provide proofs by melting metaphysical concepts into cherry-picked fragments of unrelated scientific concepts with a similar feel to them, and by a technique all too well known from the sermons of preachers and the bible: expounding on a proposition by endless litanies of analogies, then claiming the matter is established by sheer plausibility. There is no comparative investigation of alternate views here, let alone hard empirical considerations. The author employs the arguments that lead him to where he wants to end up simply because the result is beautiful.
To pick up on a central fault line in an exemplary fashion: the dichotomy between the true self = consciousness and the external self that is worn like a dress (ambitions, job, position, money, pretty much anything that is subject to change). Even memory is stated to be external to consciousness. This is where the need for axiomatic belief in an immaterial soul comes in. An entirely different concept of consciousness makes memory an absolutely integral part of consciousness. The fact that it is not stable over time means necessarily that there is no unalterable true self = consciousness, but that it is subject to change like all external attributes. Moreover, these attributes can feedback on the state of consciousness. The dichotomy the author claims to lie at the very foundation of the whole tractate remains conjectural and is not, and probably cannot be stringently argued.
When the author later introduced terms like "divine" and "false idols" (= factors external to one's true self) I realized that this is a covert sermon disguised as a stringent philosophical analysis of more general validity. As in any religious belief, we encounter the immaterial at the center of it all (spirit, true self etc.). Again, the author superficially borrows ill-digested concepts of quantum physics to question the materiality of the world we perceive, thereby suggesting a form of pan-universalism of a greater consciousness, which we are part of, permeating the universe. It doesn't take much to realize the author talks about God. At best, an actual physicist will react with befuddlement, at worst with a headache. Once the self-help part kicks in, we encounter a concoction of concepts of Eastern Zen philosophy and Taoism, advising of letting go of a whole roster of concerns to achieve the inner peace of one's true self, to simply stop fighting between the true self and the externals. In this context to let go of the concept of "evil" (the true self doesn't recognize it apparently) is a prelude to a "love thy neighbor" prescription in different words.
In general, the author seems to be infatuated with the conflation of disparate concepts and condensing the existence of conscious life and the universe generally into some sort of "oneness". In that, it is highly reductionist.
In summary, this is a religious sermon to condense complicated and mysterious matters into beautifully simple concepts and make them appear more profound than they are by extensive enumeration of examples and analogies. In that, it is not economical with the time of readers. Once you get the drift, you can skip over the text; you know what comes next. In the universe of self-help books, it does not stand out as particularly original, nor are the prescriptions for self-improvement likely to impact the ills of society introduced early on. It strikes me as a very American book borne of a libertarian-leaning view wherein all societal ills rest solely on the shoulders of individuals and can all be successfully addressed on that level. In a way, one could classify it as a form of the recently popular "trickle-down" philosophies, or perhaps "trickle-up" in this case. The validity of such beliefs is not exactly empirically supported.
I give this book a star recognizing that there are probably quite a few less analytically inclined troubled souls (who believe they have one) who derive solace from it. After all, the conclusions are tempting. Who doesn't want to achieve inner peace?
Another star for providing some food for intellectual sparring and an engaging, eloquent writing style with a clear organization and story flow.
Stars subtracted for: (i) lack of stringency and depth, (ii) not good use of readers' time, and (iii) lack of originality.
All in all, mobilizing all my goodwill, 2 stars out of 5 for this book from me.
***
View In It Together on Bookshelves
