The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Inquiry into Human Freedom by John N. Gray

Dec 28, 2015 John Pistelli rated it liked it

Shelves: philosophy, essays, literary-criticism-theory, twenty-first-century, politics-history, nonfiction

A brief and essayistic digest of Gray's analysis—he views western modernity as deludedly self-satisfied in its unwitting recapitulation of the Gnostic heresy that humanity can be God—and his aesthetic—his is an austere and gentlemanly nihilism, such as one finds in Borges or Sebald. There is little new here for those who have read Straw Dogs or Black Mass, but Gray's opening tour of modern literary Gnosticism from Kleist to Dick is fun, like a good lecture, and it put a few more books on my read A brief and essayistic digest of Gray's analysis—he views western modernity as deludedly self-satisfied in its unwitting recapitulation of the Gnostic heresy that humanity can be God—and his aesthetic—his is an austere and gentlemanly nihilism, such as one finds in Borges or Sebald. There is little new here for those who have read Straw Dogs or Black Mass, but Gray's opening tour of modern literary Gnosticism from Kleist to Dick is fun, like a good lecture, and it put a few more books on my reading list (Giacomo Leopardi, T. F. Powys) even as I enjoyed its review of books and authors I already admire (Schulz's Street of Crocodiles, Lem's Solaris—though not Dick, whom I've never liked or been able to read).

I must say, though, that Gray's literary history follows very closely, even down to the specific examples and the governing marionette metaphor, Victoria Nelson's own analysis of contemporary cultural Gnosticism in her wonderful 2003 book, The Secret Life of Puppets, a work Gray oddly does not mention. Likewise, "Gnosticism is the hidden theology of modern secular progressive thought" is a thesis first developed, if I am not mistaken, by the philosopher Eric Voegelin, who also goes uncredited here, despite the book's many references and annotations.

The book's concluding chapters detail a realistic appraisal of humanity's future prospects: in short, the west will enter an anti-humanistic culture of intelligent machines and docile, tech-pacified people, with a periphery of unincorporated violence in the less technologically developed world. Likely, if depressing, enough. Gray's counsel is neither Marxian revolution nor Nietzschean anarchy, both of which he dismisses as outmoded radicalisms that have proven themselves unworkable or worse; instead, he recommends a pursuit of "inner freedom," like that of the Stoics (or the Taoists, whom he does not mention here but who feature in Straw Dogs).

But the most arresting part of Gray's inquiry comes in the middle of the book, in his long discussion, and at least partial defense, of the Aztec or Mexica civilization, including its practice of human sacrifice. According to Gray, modern liberal society may congratulate itself on its supposed peacefulness, but in reality we only deny our capacity for violence even as we live behind walls policed by very violent agencies, from the coerced foreign labor that brings us cheap consumer goods to the endless proxy wars raging around the globe, in which people are slaughtered and their environments permanently despoiled for the sake of resources our techno-societies require or for the empowerment of the states in which we live. The Aztecs, Gray seems to say, were at least honest with themselves in formalizing a ritual, i.e., human sacrifice, that both expressed and contained their capacity to do harm, which all humans share. Gray sees it as no accident that their civilization was so orderly and aesthetically refined aside from this gruesome rite; the regulated release of disordered emotion, the ritual frenzy, in fact, enabled the elegance and control. Some contrast with our own disordered society, with all its disavowed killing, is certainly implied.

This kind of thinking, which disturbs but which cannot be dismissed, and which is not easily summed up in the usual arguments of the Left 0r Right, is the reason I read Gray. The Soul of the Marionette is not his best book among those I've read—Straw Dogs is more poetic and philosophically rich, and Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern more timely in this age of ISIS, as it convincingly argues that Islamic radicalism is not a medieval throwback or some "discourse of the Other" but is rather another modern or even modernist movement of revolutionary violence, like fascism and Marxism-Leninism before it. But the present book's literary focus will interest readers seeking to understand our world through fiction; I do recommend that they go beyond Gray's bibliography, however, and also seek out the aforementioned Victoria Nelson and Eric Voegelin. ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Feb 07, 2016 Caren rated it liked it

Shelves: adult-nonfiction

This was a very odd book. I kept reading and reading, thinking, I have never looked at the world quite like this guy does, which is what made it interesting. Really, that is one of the benefits of reading, isn't it? You get to look at the world through other eyes.
I actually think this quote from page 9 rather sums up his point of view:
Many people today hold to a Gnostic view of things without realizing the fact. Believing that human beings can be fully understood in the terms of scientific mater ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Sep 18, 2015 Jeff Rowe rated it really liked it

Full confession: I love John Gray. I read Silence of the Animals and Straw Dogs before this. So going in, I'm already primed to like this book. It didn't disappoint. Some of the stuff was just a clearer exposition of points he makes in his other books. Like how science wants to be anti-religion but it really is just another of the many branches of Christianity/Gnosticism. His chapters on robots were excellent. Humans don't want to make simulated versions of themselves. They want perfected versio ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jul 07, 2015 John Kemp rated it liked it

Neither as stimulating as Straw Dogs, nor as wide-ranging and challenging on contemporary issues as I had hoped. Little on AI (despite the title), nothing on the paradoxical issues of political freedom and the fundamentalist challenge (particularly since Gray is such a trenchant critic of idealism). The point about science as the child of Gnosticism is well made and probably needs reiterating regularly. The passage about Aztec sacrifice and its relation to our own culture was definitely arrestin ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jun 18, 2015 Jim Coughenour rated it it was ok

Shelves: thinkingcap

Judge this book by its cover. It's as depressing and provocative as its bad art suggests.* At its best, it's a musing meander among gloomy writers of yesteryear, some superb (Heinrich von Kleist, Bruno Schulz), some simply alcoholic or insane in interesting ways (Guy Debord; Philip Dick). There are also dark nuggets of the celebrated Gray gloom, of which I can't resist inserting a couple here:

Our successors may not be rebellious robots but more highly evolved decendents of computer worms. The pr

Judge this book by its cover. It's as depressing and provocative as its bad art suggests.* At its best, it's a musing meander among gloomy writers of yesteryear, some superb (Heinrich von Kleist, Bruno Schulz), some simply alcoholic or insane in interesting ways (Guy Debord; Philip Dick). There are also dark nuggets of the celebrated Gray gloom, of which I can't resist inserting a couple here:

Our successors may not be rebellious robots but more highly evolved decendents of computer worms. The prospect of the world being taken over by electronic viruses may seem to have evolution upside down; but that is so only if you view evolution from a human point of view.

Let's rub that one in:

Evolution has no attachment to the attributes modern thinkers imagine are essentially human – self-awareness, rationality and the like. Quite the contrary: by enabling the increase in human power that has taken place over the past few centuries, these very attributes may bring about humanity's obsolescence… Humans may turn out to be like the Neanderthals, a byway in evolution. Aiming to remake the world in its own image, humankind is bringing into being a world that is post-human. However it ends, the Anthropocene will be brief.

Not surprisingly, Gray concludes that the most effective kind of human freedom is "some version of the inward variety prized by the thinkers of the ancient world… it is only the freedom that can be realized within each human being that can be secure." That's what counts as hope, as an ethic to aspire toward. "Rather than trying to impose sense on your life, you will be content to let meaning come and go."

Of course, being the polemicist he is, he can't stop making sense. I admire his contradictions, particularly his insight that "Science is a method of inquiry, not a view of the world." and his robust appreciation for the very human quest for meaning that religion delivers dependably if not convincingly. His comment on the obscure novels of T. F. Powys

Powys, on the other hand, cherished mortality. Far from death being the supreme evil, it lightens the burden of life. Nothing could be worse, he believed, than living for ever.

echoes my own wry areligious conviction.

Despite such entertainments, I'd guess this book is one for the fans. If you want a shorter version, check out the Guardian podcast, or the summary of the same.
_____________
* Not necessarily an insult. A friend told me he thought the cover looked like one of my own cartoons. And yes, this is a plug for a piece of flotsam. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jun 18, 2019 Bob Nichols rated it it was ok

The book is challenging. It jumps around some, alluding to various other writers on this and that and I didn’t find a clear, succinct statement about his overall thesis. Taking on the history of Western philosophy, Gray starts with Plato-Socrates, continues with Christianity-Gnosticism, and then moves on to the enlightenment, modern-day science and now the world of algorithms. For Gray, the differences in these thought traditions are superficial. What they have in common is an arrogance of sorts The book is challenging. It jumps around some, alluding to various other writers on this and that and I didn’t find a clear, succinct statement about his overall thesis. Taking on the history of Western philosophy, Gray starts with Plato-Socrates, continues with Christianity-Gnosticism, and then moves on to the enlightenment, modern-day science and now the world of algorithms. For Gray, the differences in these thought traditions are superficial. What they have in common is an arrogance of sorts. It’s a belief in the supremacy of mind and its ability to take control of human destiny. It’s about a certain kind of freedom from the material world. For Plato, it’s about a world of perfection and a transcendence (freedom) from this world via knowledge. (1) The monotheistic faiths and the Gnostics expressed a variation of the same. For the religious faiths, it was about submergence to God’s will; for the Gnostics, it was an “exiting from the natural world.” (2)

Though focused on this-world concerns, the scientific and enlightenment tradition is, Gray argues, equally inflicted with a Socratic-Gnostic hubris in which “freedom was achieved by the possession of a special kind of knowledge.” “Modern rationalism is another version of this religion,” Gray writes. Just as the Tibetan prayer wheel magically sends pleas for good fortune into the winds, modern thinkers have developed “a state-of-the-art prayer-wheel, an electronic device containing inspirational texts on the progress of humanity, powered by algorithms that show this progress is ongoing.” Or, as a variation of the same mindset, Gray refers to the Pinker-like statistics that show a decline in human violence. But while this “seeming exactitude of statistics…has a compelling charm,” Gray writes that these numbers “are morally dubious, if not meaningless.” (3) Even so, the march of progress continues with “techno-enthusiasts” pushing artificial intelligence, transforming humans to “closely resemble machines” so that “a technologically enhanced species will join in the ongoing evolutionary advance.”

I struggled with the book’s title and subtitle and the opening discussion about the soul of the marionette. The meaning of this book is not altogether clear. In thinking about this some more, my best guess is that his point is that the Gnostics took freedom in one direction (freedom from this world), and the secular humanists-scientists took it in a different direction (freedom to remake this world). Both attempt to eliminate problems with this world, either via escape or domination.

Gray ends his book by discussing the marionette’s resistance to gravity and he employs some of Taoist principles to put a wrap on his thesis. The essence of human life is living with competing beings. The freedom of one confronts the freedom of the other. Tension and conflict go with the nature of things. The moral lesson is not to deny this reality, but to cultivate “the practice of mutual non-interference.” Is this the soul of the marionette? Gray is practical and he doesn’t want to complicate things. “The purpose of such ‘negative freedom,” Gray writes, “is to protect human beings from each other.” The divide between the freedom of one from the freedom of the other is that point of balance that minimizes resistance and, thereby, allows the movement of each.

(1) “In Socrates,” Gray writes, “this belief in the saving power of knowledge expressed a metaphysical faith: if a wise person was bound to be good, it was because they identified themselves with a perfect order of things that existed beyond the realm of the senses. If you read only conventional histories of philosophy, you would never know that the saint of rationalism consulted oracles, looked for meaning in dreams and obeyed an inner guide that he described as ‘the voice of God.’ Socrates never altogether renounced ancient Greek shamanism; but his intimations went far beyond such beliefs and practices. Claiming he knew nothing for sure, he never doubted that the world was rational. Lying at the bottom of the Socratic faith in reason is a mystical equation of the true and the good. Its origins forgotten or denied, this became the basis of western rationalism – the hollowed-out version of Socrates’ teaching that Nietzsche mockingly called Socratism.”

(2) The Gnostics, Gray writes, “did not deny that order existed in the world; but they viewed this order as a manifestation of evil to which they refused to submit….humans can escape this slavery by acquiring a special kind of knowledge. Gnosis is the Greek world for knowledge, and for Gnostics knowledge is the key to freedom.” That knowledge, though, was about a transcendent world and that freedom was about an escape from this imperfect material world. In Gnosticism, Gray writes, “evil and ignorance are one and the same; when gnosis is attained, evil vanishes – at least for the adept.”

(3) Gray writes of the Aztec human sacrifice in a way that I found confusing, though his overall point was clear enough. The killing was “not about improving the world, still less to fashion some higher type of human being. The purpose of the killing was what they affirmed it to be: to protect them from the senseless violence that is inherent in a world of chaos.” Gray’s explanation that sacrifice was about “making meaning” (his words) seemed understated, if not breezy. Fear and placating the gods seem more relevant. But his main point makes sense. “Barbarians,” he writes, “may have something to teach those who think themselves civilized, and in this case, they show how tenuous are the assumptions on which western thinkers base their hopes of peace. Even the greatest realists among these thinkers base their account of the order in society on an account of human motivation that is far removed from reality.”
...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jan 23, 2016 Clark Hays rated it it was amazing

Cutting the strings of human exceptionalism

John Gray covers familiar ground, eloquently. He plunders obscure writers and leans heavily on his knowledge of history to build an argument that deconstructs human exceptionalism and to dispel the notion that people, society and culture progress in some linear fashion. His thesis is that humans create the illusion of order because the alternative — embracing the certainty that we are mortal and meaningless creatures (“flawed, intermittently lucid anim Cutting the strings of human exceptionalism

John Gray covers familiar ground, eloquently. He plunders obscure writers and leans heavily on his knowledge of history to build an argument that deconstructs human exceptionalism and to dispel the notion that people, society and culture progress in some linear fashion. His thesis is that humans create the illusion of order because the alternative — embracing the certainty that we are mortal and meaningless creatures (“flawed, intermittently lucid animals”) in an indifferent world — fills many of us with paralyzing dread. That created sense of order was once overseen by invented gods, then an invented god and now by science (which, in a sense, elevates human ingenuity to the status of an invented god). Regardless of how it is embodied, the underlying impulse is to create a sense of purpose and progress that he, of course, considers false.

The title is based on a short story that brings to life the crux of the issue. Which is truly free, the marionettes (who have no control over their actions and are free to simply allow external forces to work upon them) or the person at the end of the strings (who, ostensibly, must constantly impose — and question the veracity and quality — of their plan). In the case of humans, our sense of self (the part of us that thinks we are unique) can be thought of as the puppet master while our physical bodies are the puppets. We look to our puppet master concept of existence (that we exert meaningful agency upon our actions, our selves and our world) when in fact we are enslaved by the unlimited freedom facing us because, as Gray puts it, “human life is spent anxiously deciding how to live.” In fact, the gulf between thought and action is what drives us to distraction and depression because as humans, “what they long for is freedom from choice.”

Through this filter, he takes apart our proclivity for celebrating as progress the questionable achievements humanity, noting that “humanity is only a name for a ragtag animal with no capacity to take charge of anything.” Rather than exceptional, or even particularly cunning, “…what seems to be singularly human is not consciousness or free will but inner conflict.”

Some might find this bleak view of our species and our place in apathetic world disconcerting; I find it inspiring, giving us a roadmap for a true form of freedom. “If you have this negative capability, you will not want a higher form of consciousness; your ordinary mind will give you all you need. Rather than trying to impose sense on your life, you will be consent to let meaning come and go.”

Beautifully written, challenging, exquisitely thought out – fans of Gray will not be disappointed.
...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Aug 09, 2016 Peter Geyer rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: consciousness, culture, owned, society, the-self, personality, religion, philosophy, christianity

It took me a while to decide whether to buy this book, finding the slim text in the bookshop where I often buy slim texts for a train road home. I've read another of his books, which I found thought-provoking and so purchased it on that basis, in addition to flicking through the book (more than I might usually). I'm interested in observations of what people are like, particularly notions of consciousness. "Thought-provoking" by the way means just that, not agreement or argument.

Gray's method se It took me a while to decide whether to buy this book, finding the slim text in the bookshop where I often buy slim texts for a train road home. I've read another of his books, which I found thought-provoking and so purchased it on that basis, in addition to flicking through the book (more than I might usually). I'm interested in observations of what people are like, particularly notions of consciousness. "Thought-provoking" by the way means just that, not agreement or argument.

Gray's method seems to be to present a theme of thought from (mostly) obscure, and often troubled writers in the context of Gnosticism, a field of personal interest and academic study. The method possibly discloses the things he likes to read, or search out, which is no bad thing for a speculative tome.

At any rate, he talks about Gnosticism in the context of good and evil, an opposite he attaches to Christianity, with some plausibility. He mentions the Demiurge – a being presumed by Gnostics to have created the world and to be of evil disposition. The battle between good and evil is an idea he speculatively links with Zoroastrianism and identifies as part of the thought surrounding early Christianity, including its notional founder. One thinks of the parousia in this context. The ex-Manichaean Augustine gets a mention as well.

The Demiurge creates the world or rules it, if you like. God, however described, is either absent – a distance away – has lost interest in his creation, or has died. Although Gray doesn't spend time on this, tt's worth noting that many Christian groups await the parousia today, as do some social revolutionaries in a way, and particular perspectives can be taken regarding climate change and Middle-East politics as triggers for the return of Jesus of Nazareth. Although the groups that proclaim this kind of thing are products of the last two centuries, it's not an unusual idea: both sides in the English Civil War were expecting the End of Days, to the benefit of their side of course, and post-war, groups like the Fifth Monarchy Men sought to implement "godly rule" according to such presuppositions.

What Gray seeks to do with this is to suggest, however obliquely, that freedom is circumscribed for human beings and that it may not be desired at all by many, as far as making a choice goes, or whether they want to be conscious. He doesn't closely define "freedom" or "consciousness" other than to use a metaphor of a marionette, as per the title, and I probably would have liked a bit more definition, but really this is a speculative account, a kind of shooting-the-breeze with various facts or ideas thrown in. Having said that, if you're interested in consciousness or think people have choices then this can set you thinking, hopefully. I liked the Gnostic theme and thought he had grasped a key element.

I wouldn't say it was a pleasant or enjoyable read and my rating reflects the thoughts provoked by reading it rather thasn startling prose or anything, but it's enough to make me think I should read more of his output (Black Mass is the only other piece). A train read it wasn't so it was completed sitting in a hotel restaurant for a couple of hours after dinner, following an early start at home.

...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 04, 2018 VII rated it really liked it

You should read Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals instead of this one, but you should read this one too if you liked Straw Dogs. Gray continues to advocate the idea that humans are not in control of their own future and progress is not inevitable like modern science promises.

He makes an interesting analogy with gnosticism, the religion that posits an evil demiurge to solve the problem of evil. Like the followers of that religion, the followers of today's science recognize that hum You should read Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals instead of this one, but you should read this one too if you liked Straw Dogs. Gray continues to advocate the idea that humans are not in control of their own future and progress is not inevitable like modern science promises.

He makes an interesting analogy with gnosticism, the religion that posits an evil demiurge to solve the problem of evil. Like the followers of that religion, the followers of today's science recognize that humanity is flawed and the world problematic but they hope that eventually humanity might transcend into something better. Of course Gray disagrees.

Although I am very sympathetic to Gray's views, I don't really buy his arguments about violence not decreasing. I also don't think that progress is impossible like he thinks. I agree though with most of the other parts of the book. The attacks on scientism, the analysis of the dangers of technology, the role of chaos and luck on human lives and his views on evolution are important. He also seems to be an encyclopedia of weird literature and weird historical events that made the book much more interesting.

The most interesting idea of the book for me however was a tiny little paragraph concerning rationality. Gray says: "Rationalists like to think the unconscious part of the mind is a relic of our animal ancestry, which further evolution will enable us to leave behind. But far more than conscious thought, it is our animal mind that makes us what we are. Science, art and human relationships emerge from processes of which we can be only dimly aware. The creative powers that are most essentially human would not necessarily be enhanced if humans were more fully conscious. Like the golems of medieval legend, a robot that possessed only conscious knowledge would be even more witless than its human creators." Even though we fail to notice it because there are infinite premises, rationality tends to lead to singular results. This is usually a good thing but it is a very bad when it comes to creativity and ways of living. If we all had the same values (premises), life would be -even more- unbearable. This idea reminds me of Feyerabend, though I am not familiar enough with him. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 22, 2017 Mohammed Al-Humaikani rated it really liked it

An unorthodox case is presented in the book which is that modern scientific thinkers are products of a brew of Socratism and scraps of decayed christianity. Gray unrelentingly pushes one’s brain into deep thinking leading to a general re-evaluation of once well-established ideas. Though the book can lead to varying conclusions, it shall always stimulate the reader to enter a dynamic conversation with the writer. Some may find the book severing all hopes of optimism and pushing one into a chasm o ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 03, 2018 David Rush rated it really liked it

The big takeaways
• The Gnostic world view holds a much greater influence today than people realize
• Paranoia and Conspiracy Thinking are a type of Gnosticism
• All of this is a search for meaning, and people will go to extreme lengths to find meaning
• In order find meaning in a meaningless world illusions are necessary
• In a sense humans are puppets but there is no puppet master
• Meaning is a conundrum

He starts off with a story about watching marionettes and uses that to say that some believe o ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 05, 2017 Danny rated it liked it · review of another edition

The reviews promised "thought-provoking," and that it was, to say the least. Gray ties together ideas from religion, science, science fiction, literature, and philosophy to essentially ask the questions - what is human freedom, and do we possess it? The book answers the second question better than the first, as freedom, like other concepts discussed, are ill-defined. Gray argues that humans are not free, but that they really do not want to be, based on the way they place so much emphasis on mean ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 15, 2015 Dannyblue rated it really liked it

'modern rationalism renews the central error of christianity - the claim to have revealed the good life for all humankind’

‘unable to exorcize violence within themselves, humans have chosen to sanctify it’

‘alone among the animals, humans seek meaning in their lives by killing and dying for the sake of nonsensical dreams. chief among these absurdities, in modern times, is the idea of a new humanity.'

‘by intervening in societies of which they know nothing, western elites are advancing a future they 'modern rationalism renews the central error of christianity - the claim to have revealed the good life for all humankind’

‘unable to exorcize violence within themselves, humans have chosen to sanctify it’

‘alone among the animals, humans seek meaning in their lives by killing and dying for the sake of nonsensical dreams. chief among these absurdities, in modern times, is the idea of a new humanity.'

‘by intervening in societies of which they know nothing, western elites are advancing a future they believe is prefigured in themselves - a new world based on freedom, democracy and human rights. the results are clear - failed states, zones of anarchy and new and worse tyrannies; but in order that they may see themselves as world-changing figures, our leaders have chosen not to see what they have done’

‘the belief that there is some hidden cabal directing the course of events is a type of anthropomorphism - a way of finding agency in the entropy of history’

‘we think we have some kind of privileged access to our own motives and intentions. in fact we have no clear insight into what moves us to live as we do. The stories we tell ourselves are like the messages that appear on Ouija boards. if we are the authors of our lives, it is only in retrospect’.

‘there is nothing to say that when all the work of reason is done, only one view of the world will remain. there may be many that fit everything that can be known. in that case you might as well choose the view of the work you find most interesting or beautiful. adopting a world view is more like selecting a painting to furnish a room than testing a scientific theory'.

‘whether or not a creature is self aware, it inhabits a world it has in some measure created’

‘rationalists like to think the unconscious part of the mind is a relic of our animal ancestry, which further evolution will enable us to leave behind. But far more than conscious thought, it is our animal mind that makes us what we are. science, art and human relationships emerge from processes of which we can only be dimly aware. the creative powers that are most essentially human would not necessarily be enhanced if humans were more fully conscious’

'belief in the liberating power of knowledge has become the ruling illusion of modern humankind. most want to believe that some kind of explanation or understanding will deliver them from their conflicts. yet being divided from yourself goes with being self-aware. this is the truth in the genesis myth: the fall is not an event at the beginning of history but the intrinsic condition of self-conscious beings.'

'accepting the fact of unknowing makes possible an inner freedom very different from that pursued by Gnostics. if you have this negative capability, you will not want a higher form of consciousness your ordinary mind will give you all you need. rather than trying to impose sense on your life, you will be content to let meaning come and go.' ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 05, 2015 Alex Zakharov rated it really liked it

Short and is as enjoyable as it is uneven. In the first (and best) chapter Gray draws from the examples of Tarkovsky, Borges, Philip K Dick (and a handful of more obscure sources) and develops a convincing theory of how modern rationality and faith in science is a flavor of Gnosticism. Naturally in Gray’s view the modern version is particularly objectionable as it doesn’t just seek to redeem the spirit through knowledge, no, in Gray’s view humankind are puppets living in a matrix circumscribed b Short and is as enjoyable as it is uneven. In the first (and best) chapter Gray draws from the examples of Tarkovsky, Borges, Philip K Dick (and a handful of more obscure sources) and develops a convincing theory of how modern rationality and faith in science is a flavor of Gnosticism. Naturally in Gray’s view the modern version is particularly objectionable as it doesn’t just seek to redeem the spirit through knowledge, no, in Gray’s view humankind are puppets living in a matrix circumscribed by biology/genetics while nurturing their faith to understand their genome to the point of transcending it, thus escaping the very nature that defines them. Personally I’m not unsympathetic to Gray’s view but the utter fatalism with which he treats human attempts at progress seems rather extreme. It is rather ironic that Gray routinely and deservedly criticizes the utopianism of Ray Kurzweil and radical atheism of Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens and yet Gray’s nihilism is equally as radical. His cute pronouncements that “Anthropocene will be brief” are as ridiculous as “Singularity is near”.

Chapters two and three are all over the place – from excellent analysis of Aztecs and their embrace of violence as acceptance of chaos and uncertainty to decent critique of Pinker (violence not decreased but exported, civilian casualties effect downplayed etc) to a plain forgettable take on relationship between technology and labor. Somewhere in the latter third there was a nice extension on general lack of causality/pattern in data to the lack of meaning in events illustrated with the example of kidnapping and murder of an Italian politician. Another memorable but unconvincing section on technology and individualism dragged on unnecessarily but at least ended with tasty punchline that the price we pay for extreme modern individualism is total loss of privacy.

Oh yes, and as far as human freedom – that would be the freedom from the tyranny of choice, but hey I used that line in the best man speech 5 years ago :)
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 08, 2020 Zare rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy, sociology, societty, john-n-gray

Although I never knowingly avoided philosophical works it takes an author who writes in interesting way without looking down to the rest of us readers, lacking full knowledge of various philosophical and sociological main and side streams, for me to pick up the book. Basics are required I agree but you can differentiate between a good author from any specialized field and the one writing to a specialized community at any time - good writer tries to intrigue you to pick up the basic works and go Although I never knowingly avoided philosophical works it takes an author who writes in interesting way without looking down to the rest of us readers, lacking full knowledge of various philosophical and sociological main and side streams, for me to pick up the book. Basics are required I agree but you can differentiate between a good author from any specialized field and the one writing to a specialized community at any time - good writer tries to intrigue you to pick up the basic works and go through them seeking additional information. And this is where this book shines.

Author tries to present ever changing ideal of freedom by going through the [as expected] comments on ancient world (Greeks, Romans, Middle East, early Christianity) but also through popular books through decades of 19th and 20th century. By doing this author tries to give as wide picture of the evolution of what almost everyone might think to be the greatest of ideas - human freedom - how human freedom was perceived through ages and how we look at it in modern times.

Is it not weird that in time and place where no human being ever lived better, had a chance to have a long and productive life did people chose to relinquish their own personal freedom while chasing dreams and trying to emulate and live lives of people that would not think twice if rest of population got thrown into the sun.

As author explains, and I agree with him, is that people mold everything into pre-existing concepts. Basically nothing actually changes, core ideas and approaches remain the same but technology and influence get better and more .... invasive you might say. Every new principle is based on the ones from before. Some parts of old approach might be thrown away, some modified in smaller or greater way but the essence remains the same. In retrospective we are more than capable of figuring what went wrong but in now we are not capable to figure out what is going on. That is why every progressive approach need to be carefully handled because when compared to the past it might look like a wonderful solution but it is rarely critically checked against contemporary conditions.

We can work on technology progress, new inventions, old/new social approaches to achieve our ideal of freedom but while these are progressing in giant steps forward (and may look excellent in theory and paper) main driving force behind it, one to use it and one to run it, human nature, is about couple of hundred years (if not millennia or two) behind it. We want to say that humans are destined for a greater role in the world (or universe) but we constantly forget that we are result of millions of years of evolution, we carry certain instincts and internal (you might even say subconscious) knowledge and view of the world that needs to be first of all acknowledged and then improved before we can leap forward to make the actual use of the latest and best we built or can create. As long as we portray ourselves as better than we actually are no new idea will come to true fruition (which is greatest issue when it comes to social challenges and evolution).

We aim to create artificial life as a way of getting free of biological limitations - but what are we to do with it? If anything this year proved that entire world can be paralyzed to a complete standstill because of a simple virus. We are not capable of handling simple situation that happened hundreds of times in our recorded history in an organized way without panic and falling into complete disarray.

As centuries go by author states it is obvious that ideas of freedom, what it is and what does it mean, change. We have come to the point where we have surrendered almost all of our privacy to external factors (which would be unimaginable even only few decades before). New generations wont even know what privacy means. Freedom from bad interference in everyday relations is now past time for all of us. Everybody will shush down and let the bully walk over them because of fears for ones future, there is no way of fighting the slander without first being dragged through mud in multiple passes (and what was the point then?). Freedom from biological limitations will bring out other questions (if we create artificial life what would be its role except for us to say - look how smart we are!) and maybe doom humanity (because are we sure that we will remain human?). So far it seems that we shed more freedom than we obtain. Which is a paradox, is it not?

Right now we need to build our own inner refuge to be able to say we are free. Inner self (thoughts and emotions) remains so far safely hidden and only place we can remain truly free. I am more skeptic about this than the author because in my opinion people want to be lead [because (again) of the human nature - and let me note that while being lead majority does not want to think] instead of being self governed. But hope always lives. I think that giant mistake was made somewhere in last century or so when majority relinquished the greatest freedom of all - freedom to think - and instead started to rely on external sources to tell us what is right and wrong. Hopefully we will manage to regain this.

For a humanity as a species to become truly free greater effort is required. We need to acknowledge that we cannot change over night and that we need to first overcome some of our basic instincts in order to be truly free (basically we need to identify that that makes us human in the first place, and lots of people don't want to go that deep because of conflict with existing concepts they built their life on) - we need to accept that we are on living on Earth but we are not special on this very planet from any other form of life. We need to learn first to walk and know ourselves before we try to soar into the sky. Otherwise we will forever be chasing the ideal of freedom while constantly blatantly lying to ourselves that we are actually only an inch from the true freedom [while making whole bunch of potentially catastrophic errors].

Very intriguing book, highly recommended. ...more

flag Like · see review

May 21, 2015 Christopher rated it really liked it

I did not find this as strong or as ground-breaking as Straw Dogs or Black Mass, but I still found it enjoyable, quotable, and necessary in this day and age. I particularly appreciated the segment of Aztec sacrifice and comparable modern behaviors as well as Gray furthering his thoughts on A.I. and darwinism.

I do have to say though that while I totally agree with Gray on being opposed to letting the christian/humanist Axis of Magic Tropes govern public discussion, I maintain the difference that ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 12, 2016 Brian Denton rated it really liked it

In which John Gray argues that modern secular humanism, far from a break with superstition, is actually little more than an updated variation on ancient Gnosticism: The idea that humans, if only they had the proper knowledge, could transcend their benighted state of affairs on earth. This, according to Gray, is an absurd proposition given that humans are "flawed, intermittently lucid animals whose minds are stuffed with nonsense and delusion." Better to embrace our finite, conflicted nature and ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 03, 2015 Shalini rated it really liked it · review of another edition

This is my first foray into anything vaguely philosophical and I cannot comment or give a star-rating for the content. However it was a very readable book. Inner freedom according to John Gray appears to be becoming a Über-marionette that does not seek to fly but is free to fall to earth. It is accepting that there is no such thing as free will or sense to human lives, and being free from conflicting moralities. He uses a wide range of examples to illustrate his point from ancient religions like ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 28, 2015 Derrick rated it it was ok

His most disappointing and least illuminating book so far. Long on literary exegesis, but short on pretty much everything else. I was looking forward to some more critical appraisals of contemporary issues. Still, Gray is the most insightful philosopher alive these days. His other books are superb examples of a true contrarian thinker.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 08, 2017 Bob Adamcik rated it it was amazing

The book is an excellent, if oblique, inquiry into human free will. And it's conclusion is refreshing and uplifting. I definitely suggest a read...and further exploration of books by John Gray.

My full review is posted here:

http://thesentienttraveler.com/review... ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 20, 2016 Scriptor Ignotus rated it liked it

Shelves: philosophy

A meandering and ponderous book about the ancient myths that discretely underlie the rationalist belief that the advances of science and morality will allow mankind to escape the shackles of its own material existence. Contains some interesting food for thought, but I found it lacking in focus.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2017 Marianne rated it it was amazing

Gnosticism, self-consciousness, freedom and fall from grace explored in a way that I have not encountered before. From the civilization of the Aztecs to a science fiction future, the author explores the needs of humanity, citing some interesting sources along the way.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 17, 2017 Ayan Dutta rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Like every John Gray book, this one deserves a Ten star . Sad that no other thinker ( barring Taleb) has similar scholarship or erudition .

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 28, 2019 Jan rated it liked it

I like reading John Gray, even though I don't agree with his bleak philosophy. But he's a remarkable thinker. He's like some prophet of old that speaks of doom but nobody listens. He's quite unique, although he shouldn't be, because he takes materialism and Darwinism to its logical conclusion: that human beings are nothing but biological machines shaped by natural selection to fit their environment of tree tops and savannahs. Most Darwinists, and who isn't a Darwinist these days, don't do that. I like reading John Gray, even though I don't agree with his bleak philosophy. But he's a remarkable thinker. He's like some prophet of old that speaks of doom but nobody listens. He's quite unique, although he shouldn't be, because he takes materialism and Darwinism to its logical conclusion: that human beings are nothing but biological machines shaped by natural selection to fit their environment of tree tops and savannahs. Most Darwinists, and who isn't a Darwinist these days, don't do that. They are humanists. They don't accept that human beings are marionettes of the forces of nature, not much more advanced than monkeys, or bees and ants. They usually believe human beings have a special capacity to find out the truth, and that knowledge and technology set them free. In fact destine them for a grand future of ever more progress, leading to some kind of final explanation and understanding of everything. But humanism, and its successor trans-humanism, is a modern mix of Gnosticism and Christianity, not something that follows from science at all.

Modern man thinks that after killing God (to speak with Nietzsche) humanity can take his place, as a god-like creature. But, says Gray, 'if you want to reject any idea of God, you must accept that 'humanity'- the universal subject that finds redemption in history – also does not exist.'
In The Soul of the Marionette Gray argues the interesting point that real marionettes (the Pinocchio kind) are free, because they are not burdened with the illusion of free will. They don't have to make choices how to lead their lives. They just go with the flow. They are 'graceful automatisms', like animals, who live on instinct and experience real freedom, even if they don't have it. Human beings don't have it either, but are always anxious and frustrated by their battles with fate, because their consciousness makes them think that they do have free will.

Nietzsches ubermensch doesn't exist. But we are uber-marionettes. Creatures who know they are self-aware machines. Who claim science has explained their mind, but that special knowledge will allow them to rise above it. But science is just a method of inquiry about physical reality (the world that we perceive). There's no guarantee at all that it can give us a complete picture of everything. A complete explanation of existence. Consciousness (our subjective world of sensations) remains a mystery in the universe. As Gray writes: 'we do not know how matter came to dream our world into being; we do not know what, if anything, comes when the dream ends for us and we die'. If we want to have inner freedom it's better to 'accept our unknowing and make our way in the stumbling human world'.

I see Gray's reasoning (if materialism is true, the universe is a meaningless mechanism and people are deluded marionnettes and witless cogs in the machine) as valid, but instead of ridiculing Darwinist, new-atheist humanists, I see it as an argument ad absurdum. We are part of the universe, and we obviously have meaning and purpose (we're not illusions), and we do have reason to think that we can create real, universal knowledge, so materialism and darwinism must be wrong. Or rather, they're right as far as science goes, but they don't give us the complete picture. If meaning emerges in the universe, it, or at least its possibility, must always have been there, in the way it's made. The complete picture would have to contain consciousness as a fundamental element. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 23, 2020 B. Rule rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I found this little philosophical-literary essay quite mordant and charmingly dark. Gray is a world-weary and genteel pessimist espousing resignation and stoical acceptance. The windmills at which he tilts are an insidious Gnosticism undergirding modern rationalist thinking, and the idea of linear, progressive history as found in all sorts of places, including Christianity, transhumanism, liberal meliorism, Romanticism, scientific progress, and probably Apple's product release calendar. Gray ide I found this little philosophical-literary essay quite mordant and charmingly dark. Gray is a world-weary and genteel pessimist espousing resignation and stoical acceptance. The windmills at which he tilts are an insidious Gnosticism undergirding modern rationalist thinking, and the idea of linear, progressive history as found in all sorts of places, including Christianity, transhumanism, liberal meliorism, Romanticism, scientific progress, and probably Apple's product release calendar. Gray identifies as Gnostic the belief that humans can escape their condition by increasing knowledge. He further excoriates the idea that humans can heal the rift in their hearts and develop a unified consciousness devoid of violence or internal conflict. In Gray's view, man is inherently violent, inherently at war with himself, and inherently deluded about his place in the world.

The sugar in which the medicine is delivered here is a wide-ranging and eclectic literary survey that explicates Gray's ideas from deep reads of writers like Heinrich von Kleist, Joseph Powys, Philip K. Dick, Giacomo Leopardi, Joseph Glanvill, Stanislaw Lem, Thomas Hobbes, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Ray Kurzweil, and Guy Debord, along with an extended excursus into Aztec society to describe how the beautiful and cultivated order of Tenochtitlan was built upon frenzies of bloodletting. As Gray tells it, Aztec society was more sane than ours in accepting that human order is a thin sheen on the surface of an endless sea of chaos, and there's no hope of calming that sea.

The vision is largely a negative creed of resignation to cycles of rising and falling civilization and acceptance of our clouded and divided natures. Gray does have some positive things to say about ancient systems of philosophy and ethics, inasmuch as they teach us to keep our expectations low. He also celebrates the necessity of illusions: they give shape to our perceptions of the world and imbue our lives with meaning. Gray cautions us against exorcising all mystery from our lives, lest we find ourselves locked into a paranoid universe of our own making.

Overall, I found his vision to be internally coherent and not uncheerful: there's a charm in being able to see through the muck of the world and declaring it all rubbish without falling into despair. On one level, I don't really disagree with any of his assessments. That said, his vision feeds my tendency to apathy or acedia, and I worry it is telling me too much what I want to hear. From Gray's point of view, there's no reason to try to make the world a better place, because our efforts are doomed to ultimate failure. But that's taking too long of a view when it comes to the immediate problem of human suffering: who cares if civilization will fall and rise again in centuries, when people are hurting and dying today and we can mitigate it by our actions now, even in some small way? I would add a postscript to Gray's philosophy: yes, everything is doomed to be ever thus, and all of our hopes and dreams are delusions of a self-divided ape consigned to blood, fire, and confusion; however, the delusion that we should offer a little aid to our fellow sufferers is a welcome one and should be encouraged. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 18, 2021 Colin Baumgartner rated it really liked it

This is a wild and eclectic ride. Gray draws from such a whimsical and diverse number of sources (Greek religion, Bruno Schulz (author of River of Crocodiles), Philip K. Dick, Aztec religion, &c &c) as he digs into the question of free will and what exactly it is. He starts, logically, with the issue of the Tree of Knowledge and the expulsion of humanity from Eden.

From this starting point, he introduces intriguing points about the gnostic reading of this story. This reading suggests that the Go This is a wild and eclectic ride. Gray draws from such a whimsical and diverse number of sources (Greek religion, Bruno Schulz (author of River of Crocodiles), Philip K. Dick, Aztec religion, &c &c) as he digs into the question of free will and what exactly it is. He starts, logically, with the issue of the Tree of Knowledge and the expulsion of humanity from Eden.

From this starting point, he introduces intriguing points about the gnostic reading of this story. This reading suggests that the God of Genesis can't possibly be anything other than a demiurge. This reading challenges humans to move beyond the imperfection of their origins and to transcend--through the acquisition of greater and greater understanding--to the level of a God themselves. Gray does a lovely job of showing how this impulse to transcend, to become God, has been incorporated into the modern religion of scientific materialism. The cockiness and smugness with which humans view the world is something that Gray does a nice job of highlighting. By drawing into sharp relief the wildly contrasting views of the Aztecs and Hobbes, Gray is able to explore meaning-making and the problematic assumptions that are lodged in the modern psyche.

Gray does a nice job of exploring how the worship of technological advancement has displaced religion (while also quietly absorbing many of the fallacies perpetuated by religion). His exploration of the modern state, the necessity of constant fear and war, and the tension between individual liberties and the traditional role of communities and responsibilities are all nicely sketched out and connect to many conversations sociologists and historians are having right now.

The conclusion of this book is quite strong. Gray returns to the question of the identity of humans. Are humans distinct from the natural world? Is it consciousness that sets us apart? Gray identifies not the flickers of sentience as the defining human characteristic, but rather the splitting of ourselves--the tension within our own minds caused by our sentience (which causes us both to desire and to fight against desire simultaneously). Gray deals beautifully with these conflicting impulses and the idea that uncertainty and this inner violence are things that can be embraced inwardly (and that this inward freedom is something much more transcendent and true than any shallower, external conceptions of freedom and transcendence). I am currently reading Nietzsche's Gay Science and many of Nietzsche's ideas about man needing the veil connect nicely with this central idea running through Gray's work.

Gray does a masterful job of playing with an idea that is big, contradictory, and difficult to discuss. His varied sources add interesting and diverse perspective on the question of free will. Great read. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 28, 2021 Mark Mulvey rated it really liked it

"How could a puppet - a mechanical device without any trace of conscious awareness - be freer than a human being? Is it not this very awareness that marks us off from the rest of the world and enables us to choose our own path in life? Yet as Kleist pictures it, the automatism of the puppet is far from being a condition of slavery. Compared with that of humans, the life of the marionette looks more like an enviable state of freedom."

"In Kleist's essay humans are caught between the graceful autom "How could a puppet - a mechanical device without any trace of conscious awareness - be freer than a human being? Is it not this very awareness that marks us off from the rest of the world and enables us to choose our own path in life? Yet as Kleist pictures it, the automatism of the puppet is far from being a condition of slavery. Compared with that of humans, the life of the marionette looks more like an enviable state of freedom."

"In Kleist's essay humans are caught between the graceful automatism of the puppet and the conscious freedom of a god. The jerky, stuttering quality of their actions comes from their feeling that they must determine the course of their lives. Other animals live without having to choose their path through life. Whatever uncertainty they may feel sniffing their way through the world is not a permanent condition; once they reach a place of safety, they are at rest. In contrast, human life is spent anxiously deciding how to live."

"No one understands the human heart at all who does not recognize how vast is its capacity for illusions, even when these are contrary to its interests, or how often it loves the very thing that is obviously harmful to it."

"We think we have some kind of privileged access to our own motives and intentions. In fact we have no clear insight into what moves us to live as we do. The stories we tell ourselves are like the messages that appear on Ouija boards. If we are authors of our lives, it is only in retrospect."

"Contemporary governments are deploying the latest technologies to develop hyper-modern techniques of control far more invasive than those of traditional tyrannies. If freedom of any kind can be found in these conditions, it is some version of the inward variety that was prized by the thinkers of the ancient world. In some future turn of the cycle, freedom in the relations of humans with one another may return; but for the present and the future that can be clearly foreseen, it is only the freedom that can be realized within each human being that can be secure."

"Nothing is more alien to the spirit of the age than to suggest that anyone might seek inner freedom, for it suggests doubt as to the prevailing faith that the human world is improving. Clearly, there are many who cannot do without this comforting faith. The most charitable course is to leave them to their slumbers. But for those of a more venturesome turn of mind, it may be worth considering - if only as a thought-experiment - what inner freedom might mean today." ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 24, 2018 Leanne rated it did not like it

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy

A short inquiry into human freedom - not short enough, I think. This book is full of bizarre sweeping statements (see: human beings murder primarily as a means to create meaning, and "soon come to find satisfaction in it") that are completely un-backed by any kind of empirical data.

"War has changed, but it has not become less destructive." Really? Then maybe we need some numbers, instead of a haiku listing a bunch of atrocities. It's impossible to see if something is increasing or decreasing wit ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 19, 2019 Scott Lupo rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction

Another good read by John Gray. It is a short inquiry, yet it covers a wide range of topics but predominately it is about human freedom and the nature of free will. A mix of religion, philosophy, history, metaphysics, and logic the book meanders through musings about the human condition. We believe we are free but "freedom among humans is not a natural human condition. It is the practice of mutual non-interference - a rare skill that is slowly learnt and quickly forgotten." His example of the Az ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 20, 2019 William Shiflett rated it really liked it

The success of a polemic requires either a sympathetic audience or a subtle message. Given its contrarian outlook, The Soul of the Marionette is unlikely to receive much in the way of sympathy. Its lack of subtlety ensures that even nonpartisan readers will find its assumptions bemusing and its assertions tenuous.

In the first section, Gray defines human freedom as the absence of doubt and indecision. To support his claim, he references Heinrich von Kleist’s essay “The Marionette Theatre”. Accord The success of a polemic requires either a sympathetic audience or a subtle message. Given its contrarian outlook, The Soul of the Marionette is unlikely to receive much in the way of sympathy. Its lack of subtlety ensures that even nonpartisan readers will find its assumptions bemusing and its assertions tenuous.

In the first section, Gray defines human freedom as the absence of doubt and indecision. To support his claim, he references Heinrich von Kleist’s essay “The Marionette Theatre”. According to Kleist, Marionettes have no consciousness, humans have flawed consciousness, and god has infinite consciousness. As a result, marionettes and god cannot experience doubt or indecision. Alternatively, humans cannot escape doubt and indecision because they are fundamental attributes of a limited consciousness.

Following the interpretation of von Kleist’s essay, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify the connection between Gray’s subsequent literary observations and the underlying theme of his book. This is not to say that Gray’s insight into the work of Dick, Forster, Lem, Leopardi, Poe, and Arkady and Boris Strugatsky is not without merit. For instance, Gray makes an anecdotal but compelling case for the paranoia of Phillip K. Dick as evidence of the human tendency to find meaning where there is none to be found. This theme is later revisited when Gray comments on Italian politics and the popular response to The Report from Iron Mountain.

Gray may have intended for these sections to emphasize that paranoia is a pathology engendered by doubt; if this is the case, Gray leaves it to the reader to make the connection (assuming that the reader is not attempting to find meaning where there is none to be found) while he moves on to the dialectics of uncaring and unintelligible extraterrestrials in Solaris and Roadside Picnic, respectively. Gray is a careful reader and his writing is persuasive, but the reader ultimately realizes that they are making their way through a series of very short essays with a few piecemeal transitions included as an afterthought.

Gray eventually posits that the secular population’s fascination with scientific materialism is actually a type of Gnosticism. This neo-Gnosticism, according to Gray, is at least partially responsible for attempts to create a better version of humanity. With this in mind, Gray scrutinizes attempts to create egalitarian societies using so-called Universalist values. He seems to conclude that the attempt to create better societies (or advanced artificial intelligence) is ultimately doomed to failure because imperfect creators are incapable of creating perfection.

In other words, contradiction, fantasy, and mythology are inexorable elements of human nature, so attempts to apply specialized, neo-Gnostic knowledge for the betterment of the species will be palliative rather truly progressive. Gray suggests that the purpose of such attempts is to reassure an anxious population that cycles of war, poverty, and unrest are coming to a close. But rather than a utopia, Gray envisages a future in which humanity has been displaced by automation and relegated to a life of pure consumption. At one point, he suggests that people could equip themselves with devices that continually inform their users of human progress via statistics; he compares this potential phenomenon to Tibetan prayer wheels, which are meant to generate the effects of prayers that would otherwise require oral recitation. The conceit is a clever one, but the delivery is drawn out and Gray quickly glosses over the punch line.

Later, Gray draws comparisons between Hobbesian social contracts and the Aztec’s worship of a capricious god. He argues that societies need not be assured of continued peace to generate advanced civilizations, and subsequently depicts the lake city of Tenochtitlan in stark contrast to the filth of contemporaneous European cities. The implication seems to be that the Western insistence on civilizations as distinct from chaos is fashionable rather than fundamental.

Again, it is difficult to ascertain what Gray intends by engineering such a contrast; presumably, he hopes to emphasize the neo-Gnostic tradition’s role in shaping a narrative concerning the displacement of chaos rather than the existence of civilization alongside chaos. The comparison is an interesting one, but ultimately hinges on a very close reading of Hobbes, a very literal application of his language, and a quixotic view of Aztec society that is quite ironic given Gray’s unflattering portrayal of the Spanish. For instance, Gray does not fully address the possibility that the Aztec sacrifices may have been intended to prevent the onset of chaos, even if they ultimately relegated themselves to destruction at the hands of their gods. Distressingly, Gray again offers little guidance for determining how his conclusions regarding the Aztecs fit into his overarching argument regarding human freedom.

Given the expansive and abstract nature of Gray’s arguments, the reader may be expected to find it difficult to recognize when Gray is establishing a premise and when he is arriving at a conclusion. However, The Soul of the Marionette is a slim volume that could easily have been much slimmer, so it is difficult to make allowances for Gray’s occasional inability to be clear as well as concise. Adding to the disarray is the fact that Gray’s narrative style vacillates between guiding the reader to a definitive viewpoint with regard to his observations on government and leaving the reader to fend for themselves with regard to his observations on literature.

Gray’s positions are not always immediately predictable and his arguments are usually provocative, though; in a world that demands empirical evidence first and foremost, Gray's readings are akin to case studies in that they cannot stand on their own, but certainly provide an imaginative re-examination of the folk wisdom we hold to be self-evident in our own time. Although analysis of this sort is not currently fashionable, it's almost certainly valuable, and it's fun to read. ...more

flag Like · see review