A New Earth, The Happiness Hypothesis, Oprah, and me

Well, although I'm still not sure why I'm doing this (possibly just to set myself a task) I've decided on an approach.

I have finished The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, by Jonathan Haidt; and quickly read A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose, by Eckhart Tolle. Quickly, because I'll be participating in Oprah's Online Web Event, a chapter a week for the next ten weeks, and documenting that slower reading here. I'm going to move back and forth between these two books (and perhaps some others) and explore the differences in how they look at human spirituality, psychology, and 'happiness'.

I'm hoping that you folks will chime in with your own perspectives and experiences.

[I'm also, by the way, still trudging through Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions, by Lisa Randall, because I must keep going or I'll have to begin again at the beginning, as I have several times with Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's odd -- I'm reading along, and mostly not getting it, except that every so often some part of my mind says WOW! -- even when most of my mind seems confused. So is one part of my mind getting it, while the rest is still in the murk?]

The differences between A New Earth and The Happiness Hypothesis are apparent at even a brief look.

Both Tolle and Haidt have NOTES.

Haidt has many notes, fifty or more per chapter, and a thick (over twenty pages) section of REFERENCES. Some few of these are references to philosophers, prophets, and scriptures of varied traditions, but most are references to scientific studies of human genetics, biology, and behavior.

Tolle's NOTES are few (about seven per chapter) and virtually all are scriptural. There are no REFERENCES, and no index.

Both use metaphors to express their ideas. Haidt tells us "this is a metaphor"; Tolle's metaphors are presented as if they are established reality. To make sense of Tolle's book, one must accept the premises (not made explicit until near the end of the book) that there is some Universal Intelligence; that the goal of evolution is Human Consciousness; and that our Purpose is to manifest that consciousness.

Now, I read science fiction, so I am accustomed, as a reader, to making that leap of disbelief into the story, the world that the author has created for the reader. Two things, though: the book is labeled fiction; and, once the initial leap is made, all must follow logically from there. Everything within that world must be coherent.

I'm not sure that everything within Tolle's A New Earth passes that test, even if one accepts the premise. But more about that as we go along.

Haidt is careful, when he presents an idea, to tell the reader what is supported by substantive research; what is supported by early research; and what is purely speculative. He also takes some time to explain his terms.

Tolle doesn't care about research. Tolle seems to care about intuition, which, as much research has demonstrated, is not necessarily reliable. Tolle uses language in ways unfamiliar (and elusive) to those not steeped in New Age thinking. Sometimes his writing is graceful and endearing; sometimes it is dense and obscure. For any reader, I suspect, it will be a challenge.

I've taken some time to peruse the MESSAGE BOARDS at Oprah.com. Postings seem to fall into three general areas: debates about whether A New Earth is or is not anti-Christian, and/or is simply a rip-off of Buddhism; testimonials; and complaints of confusion. I've seen only one post that questions whether Tolle understands basic scientific theory that he uses to support his arguments. I would like to see a great deal more of this last. I am feeling, sharply, the limitations of my own education, as I try to make sense of -- and recognize both accuracy and errors in --Tolle's reasoning.

So. The class begins tonight, and I'll be posting at least once a week on this topic.

I'll try to keep writing poems, too.

Comments

[niki]

Thanks for your great comments on the two books. I appreciate your perspective and look forward to reading both of them.

[...deb]

I love that you are taking this project on and reporting your thoughts about it. I'm intrigued, but too lazy to do what you are doing. (I do hope poetry comes of it.)

(I tried Hawkens once, and couldn't get through it. Good for you. I also like your discription of partial comprehension. I always hope - with books like that - that I am comprehending somewhere on a deep level that will become apparent, sometime. Or that if I go back to the book that the familiarity with words might help me glean more with the present reading. But I haven't tried Hawkens again. I have been reading a variety of Fritjok Capra over the past few years, instead. Not the same heft, at all, but a joy.)

[duke]

Peace be with the moderator as well as those reading this message.(that is if this message is not censored :-).
The time has come, the harvest is ripe.
I am here to bring judgment to those who are awake, and those who are asleep.
Now is your time of testing.
Pass this on to all fellow believers.

The Faithful Witness
Duke

[chusty]

message boards are places where real opinion wars are being made now :)