(book review)
Okay, regarding the book, The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk About Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness…
If you're able to suspend your disbelief, this book is really fascinating. I see that the point is not the presentation but the message, yet my editor/ writer/analytic self wishes it could just be a bit more straightforward in presentation. . .like, “Hey. These are ideas I have on god and the universe and our place on the earth plane. . .” Yet I know that credibility is an issue others have as well, and the mass media marketing machine has taught us to believe or embrace that which has some clout. Clout is indicated by association with respected and well-known authorities, success, packaging, testimonials.
The clout I seek, however, is more rooted in pragmatism. Show me a photo, provide a recording, a video, or information that is irrefutable. . .as hard as it is to allow that to be enough these days, what with the manipulative technologies we have at our disposal: Proof can be tampered with, altered, and even created in such a way as to be indiscernible from the real thing. Alas. Heavy sigh. So perhaps it comes down to what resonates for each of us. Perhaps I've come round the circle. . .perhaps I've gone round the bend. I'll explore that later.
As for the content of the book—I actually agree with some of the ideas presented, and resonate with others. I enjoy ideas that flirt with social upheaval. I like to rattle spiritual cages. This book does that. I am still reading it. It's taking me a while because of TED (my affectionate moniker for Thyroid Eye Disease). Sometimes the words just won't come into focus and I spend a lot of time trying to find just the right strength of reading glasses to wear over my contacts. . .and it's also taking me a while because I tend to read the other 8 books I have on tap at the same time. . .I have digressed again. . .(I'm only on my first cup of coffee).
The book, The Disappearance of the Universe. . .yes. Fascinating. Worth reading. Probably one of the most important cage-rattling books to come along in some time. If you can suspend your disbelief.
One problem I had, for example was the pronouncement about "only listening to the Holy Spirit." You cannot authentically say that you “only listen to the Holy Spirit” because we are human and humans often can't tell the difference between what they need to hear and what's there (or not there). When you speak of an entity for whom there is no proof, nor whom anyone has seen, it’s a stretch to say that you know what that entity is “saying” to you—in your head—like what happens to schizophrenics, I might add.
While I am a skeptic about most things, I am also spiritual and have a great affinity for things metaphysical. It is a precarious and time-consuming way to be. But it seems to work for me. Anyway. Here are some thought-provoking excerpts from the text that caught my interest:
“. . .there are people who are highly visible when, rather than being true masters of spirituality and metaphysics, they are merely exhibiting the symptoms of an extroverted personality.” (p.33.1) No doubt an aspersion at the competition for the spiritual publishing market. And in my experience there are many highly visible gurus who exhibit other personality traits that fall into the realm of “disorders.”
“. . .it doesn't matter what actions you take or don't take in the world—although your way of seeing and the attitude you maintain while engaging in any action does matter.” (p.35.3) Well now, it DOES kind of matter what actions you take and don’t take, obviously. But I do understand it’s easier to deal with the consequences if you’re a positive-thinker.
“. . .he who needs nothing can be trusted with everything.” (p.40/41). Unless it’s money he needs, and you have it and are looking the other way…I wouldn’t say this was a person to necessarily trust with my money. On the surface, then, quite a lofty and poetic statement, but it forgets human nature.
“In the end, everything except for God is metaphor.” (p. 82) This one is all very well and good, but it makes a huge assumption that God is NOT a metaphor as well. The reality is, He could be. Humans quite possibly invented him, rather than the other way around.
