What is an Inquiry?

Inquiry

What did you think of Dan Brown's latest book The Lost Symbol?

Dan Brown, author of The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, just released his latest novel last week: The Lost Symbol.  It is yet another conspiracy-laden thriller featuring Robert Langdon (famously played on the big screen by Tom Hanks), exploring the science of consciousness, the rituals of Freemasonry, and the revelation of the "Ancient Mysteries" that have supposedly been protected over many generations by this notorious secret society.  What's more, much of the plot seems to take place right in our own integral backyards, drawing upon some of the fascinating work being done over at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and even has a character with eerie similarities to our dear friend Marilyn Schlitz.

Have you read the book?  What did you think?  What kind of overlap do you think The Lost Symbol shares with the integral movement at-large?  How do you think the integral vision can help make sense of some of Dan Brown's overarching themes?

Please Log in to Vote.

5 out of 5 members found this useful.

Dan Brown's Lost Symbol

Posted September 25th, 2009 by Ed Enck

 

 

From an laymans integral perspective Dan Brown's new novel The Lost Symbol could be read a bit like some of us read a Ken Wilber book.  Read first time through to enjoy it and get what you can out of it, and a second time to actually try to understand some it.  I'm not saying that The Symbol is necessarily worth the second read (better than Angels - almost as good a DaVinci Code), but it could be read just for a junk food pleasure while enjoying the integral ideas and then again to analyze it from a truly integral perspective. I for one enjoyed the reintroduction to Washington D.C. and will look forward to taking the “Dan Brown Symbols Tour” on my next visit.
 
That said, even on first read you can't miss the multitude of integral ideas: from lost contemplative origins of most religions and their unifying underlying philosophies to references to research on meditation and the noetic sciences.  The idea of Oneness and man as God run through out the book but I kept wishing (even on first read) that he had studied some KW so he could have avoided the pre-trans fallacies.  For me the book's philosophy breaks down because of an over emphasis on one quadrant (thought processes) and an overly nostalgic view of and desire to return to the past missing the idea that while the mystics of old may have been "enlightened" they were so from a pre-rational level of development. It is incredibly valuable to read the Bible (or the Koran or Torah or…) from an integral perspective:  to watch Abraham move being told by God to kill his son Isaac, to talking with God about it during his journey, to deciding as God what to finally do is a very powerful new reading of an old story. But, to pin the future of man to decoding the secrets within these ancient religious texts that have been rewritten so many times by so many hands seems to miss the point of integral human development through the levels, lines and stages.  None the less, don’t miss Dan’s reference to lines of development when he compares learning to play the violin to learning to use your mind.
 
If you could combine The Lost Symbol with Boomeritis you might cause a cosmic shift in consciousness with a book that will be read by millions and understood by enough to cause the human center of conscious gravity to shift a bit.  

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Fun but not great.

Posted October 7th, 2009 by Samuel Tornqvist

I find the book quite predictive with poorly developed story and characters. But the ideas and concepts are certainly interesting.

I still really enjoyed the book(s), like a great action movie. Nothing special, no eye-opening deep moments but an easy fun read.

I also thought the “back to the good old times” or the “pre/trans rational mix-up” was a bit annoying at times.

I have often played with the idea that perhaps Dan Brown’s books will make people think and pursue some questions. Especially by people who normally never think about these ideas whom I think the book reaches. If this is true, here is where the real mastery lies; a fairly bad written thriller that makes you wonder and perhaps evolve in some way. Or make you interested at least. Who cares about if the “high-end smarts” don’t like it?

I also find that many get upset about this book and it is kind of popular to overly criticize these books due to the simple and predictive formula. A sort of: “It is below me to read and appreciate “such a simple silly book”.
This critique feels like envy to me. I mean the fact that Dan is really successful. Or that it is not good for ones self-image to actually enjoy a book that is not the most advanced Wilber-material.

For me, a fun read I will quickly forget.

Samuel Törnqvist