Skip to main content

The Flip - Jeffrey Kripal ***

In The Flip, Jeffrey Kripal (a professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought) argues for a new view of the cosmos, consciousness and the relationship between humans and everything else out there. The 'flip' in question is a damascene conversion, but one that is spiritual without being conventionally religious - having your viewpoint transformed by a life-changing experience, often one that might be associated with the paranormal.

 Kripal begins with two ‘true tales’ one of precognition the other of apparent communication with dead. But these immediately make me twitchy - data, as they say, is not the plural of anecdote. All too often people’s accounts of experiences (or even worse their memories) prove wildly inaccurate. Kripal tries to undermine this argument by saying we disempower stories by calling them anecdotes - yet the history of paranormal research shows that time and again as soon as controls are properly imposed the inexplicable experiences stop. (Kripal tells us this is because you need to be in extremis for these things to happen - something I can understand, yet you would imagine sometimes they would still occur in controlled settings. A simpler explanation is that they aren't real.)

 The author damages his credibility with sweeping statements like ‘I simply want to call out those who want to claim [paranormal phenomena] do not happen. They do.’ I would love this to be the case - but argument from authority is no way to persuade anyone. It verges on deception to describe a situation where someone has a premonition and it comes true without mentioning the millions of time people have premonitions that don’t - this is world class cherry picking. This is frustrating, as after writing a book on the paranormal I was happy to accept there may be some unexplained occurrences (though the vast majority don’t hold up to scrutiny), but to only present them as fact in this unquestioning way ruins any potential for credibility. 

 Underlying Kripal's viewpoint is what amounts to a inversion of C. P. Snow’s 'two cultures' concept. In Snow's 1960s world, the humanities were too dominant. Now, Kripal seems to argue it’s the sciences that are too much in the driving seat. (It's hard not to see this as science envy from a humanities academic.) Leaving aside the indubitable fact that most people in political power still have a humanities background, the problem is that each discipline has its own fields of applicability - and explaining phenomena is a situation where science is far more effective.
The irritating thing is that I agree with Kripal that there may be something there and that we shouldn't undervalue the humanities - but the way he goes about putting his message across wins him no favours. So, for example, Kripal tells us that students are moving more to STEM subjects because the humanities are not valued because the are perceived as being 'concerned with surface phenomena, with things that are not real, that are nonexistent.' But, in reality, if you talk to real undergraduates, it's far more that students are preferring STEM subjects because this is where the jobs are - perhaps an ivory tower academic view missing the real world context.

 The book is not all bad - although Kripal does indulge in quite a lot that comes near the kind of quantum waffle that is associated with books that attempt to link Eastern mysticism and physics, such as The Dancing Wu Li Masters, he doesn't have such a wide-eyed acceptance as these books tend to, and the underlying message is more about a different understanding of the nature and importance of consciousness and our relationship with the wider universe than it is about trying to argue that Eastern mysticism prefigures quantum theory. Even so, there was a lot here that seemed either about fighting an academic corner (you can almost see parts of it as the basis for a funding application) or too reliant on making stuff up as you go along.

 Definitely interesting - glad I read it - but ultimately not convincing.
Hardback:    
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more