jjupille's review against another edition
challenging
medium-paced
3.5
Act of Creation is one of my favorite books. This one provides more foundation and more scaffolding around that one, especially as it relates to the nature of hierarchic systems and a logic of paedmorphosis (step back to leap forward). A trusted friend finds his account of evolution a little too Lamarckian, but I found it pretty persuasive. The last part, on schizophysiology as why we are so fucked, is fascinating. He goes off the rails in several places, IMO, but I just love reading Koestler.
steve_t's review
3.0
Well, that was an interesting ride. Koestler is definitely what I would call an armchair academic. Well read, fun to talk to at parties, full of fascinating ideas ... not quite sure quite sure if the ideas are right though, but that's okay, they are just so interesting to talk to.
I read this book because I love Ghost in the Shell and wanted to read the book which inspired, at least the title. Imagine my surprise when the book mentions that the title came from Prof. Gilbert's book, The Concept of the Mind. Not much of the Koestler book has to do with the anime though. The description of a surgery where people describe a movement of the body not caused by their mind, that was certainty an inspiration, as well as the very central idea of a 'ghost.' A mind which exists outside of the brain. The way Koestler at the end of the book shares his solution (won't spoil it because it was a bit of a shocker to me), speaks to that desire for rapid change to overcome humanity.
Koestler is a fun writer, with a nice dose of humour and sarcasm. He jumps around so much though, that it makes it difficult to see his logical progression of thoughts. It feels more like, rather than wanting to convince us of a claim, he just wanted to talk for as long as possible on every subject he could. The section on evolution I found the most interesting. Will keep his ideas in mind, even if I have a gut level reaction that he is wrong. He seems to be implying a teleological model to evolution, which made me cautious.
The only real critique (beyond whether he is right or wrong because I am not knowledgeable in all the fields he mentions) is that his perspective is pretty eurocentric, in that old aristocratic sense. He doesn't speak as a human from all races, but specifically as a European academic. At one point he says, "The fast breeders in Asia, Africa and Latin America are by nature the least amenable to disciplined family planning." Besides being a very questionable and racist statement, it goes against almost the entire spirit of the book, in how scientific developments can change attitudes and ways of living. I feel like he calling every non-white people a marsupial with a statement like that (A reference to the book).
I read this book because I love Ghost in the Shell and wanted to read the book which inspired, at least the title. Imagine my surprise when the book mentions that the title came from Prof. Gilbert's book, The Concept of the Mind. Not much of the Koestler book has to do with the anime though. The description of a surgery where people describe a movement of the body not caused by their mind, that was certainty an inspiration, as well as the very central idea of a 'ghost.' A mind which exists outside of the brain. The way Koestler at the end of the book shares his solution (won't spoil it because it was a bit of a shocker to me), speaks to that desire for rapid change to overcome humanity.
Koestler is a fun writer, with a nice dose of humour and sarcasm. He jumps around so much though, that it makes it difficult to see his logical progression of thoughts. It feels more like, rather than wanting to convince us of a claim, he just wanted to talk for as long as possible on every subject he could. The section on evolution I found the most interesting. Will keep his ideas in mind, even if I have a gut level reaction that he is wrong. He seems to be implying a teleological model to evolution, which made me cautious.
The only real critique (beyond whether he is right or wrong because I am not knowledgeable in all the fields he mentions) is that his perspective is pretty eurocentric, in that old aristocratic sense. He doesn't speak as a human from all races, but specifically as a European academic. At one point he says, "The fast breeders in Asia, Africa and Latin America are by nature the least amenable to disciplined family planning." Besides being a very questionable and racist statement, it goes against almost the entire spirit of the book, in how scientific developments can change attitudes and ways of living. I feel like he calling every non-white people a marsupial with a statement like that (A reference to the book).
More...