4 ms·

Yeah, this is a woo-woo look at how the world supposedly works from an enthusiastic supporter of Ayurveda and homeopathic medicine. The book references sacred

Yeah, this is a woo-woo look at how the world supposedly works from an enthusiastic supporter of Ayurveda and homeopathic medicine. The book references sacred geometry. It talks about inscribing an equilateral triangle on Chartres cathedral to draw a diagram of a vulva. It's full of literal errors about the locations of real world objects and the nature of physics. He references the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Emerald Tablet of Hermes. If "philosopher king" means the old guy in the corner apartment who thinks "everything's quantum, man, it's all about balance and vibrations," then I think we can do without one. Everything true in the book is just the obvious stuff... don't poison the planet, don't let species go extinct, it's going to be bad. Ok. It's a stupid, stupid book for shallow thinkers who are impressed by hand-waving gestures at the concept of depth.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
You haven’t read it. You’ve read flame reviews and you are just piling on. I’ve read it closely and followed the references. Calling it a “stupid, stupid book” betrays your ignorance.
- StrictDabbler 4y ago
  I have the epub of the book right here. I read it as a result of Charles ascending the throne. It was easy to read it quickly because everything in it I have already read somewhere else. It's trite, stupid, and surprisingly short. Very little in it is actively wrong (except for the weird mysticism) but absolutely nothing is novel. It might be passable as a couple of chapters in a high-school textbook about environmental sustainability written by an entry-level copywriting intern. Oh, wait! It was written by two Harper-Collins textbook staffers and Charles' involvement was... well, who knows. The chapter on the Fibonacci sequence in particular is disappointing and effectively plagiarized from countless "science for the masses" sources that we've all been exposed to before. The whole Fibonacci/nature connection has of course been debunked for about two decades. I'm interested in your argument "if you dislike this book, you can't possibly have read it," but not very interested. There isn't a single thing in this book that I and every moderately bright student of my acquaintance didn't already know at the age of 14, bar the details of Charles' own land-holdings and the few events in that have happened in the last three decades. Oddly few events in the book happened in the last three decades, though. To call him a "philosopher King" on the basis of this text is absolutely laughable and verges on shameful. Edit: Perhaps my favorite gaffe in the whole book is the inclusion of a picture of the marbled cone snail (conus marmoreus) in a different chapter than the Fibonacci sequence nonsense. Charles isn't even sufficiently up to date on his numerological woo to have gone on about the remarkable connection between the marbled and textile snails and cellular automata. Instead the caption just says "Marbled cone shell. The deadly poisons produced by this and other cone shells could provide major medical benefits, but only if we prevent the extinction of these remarkable creatures." Further edit: I have been too hard on Charles. After reviewing the credits and references, as you recommended, I must conclude the book was ghost-written by two professional textbook authors employed by Harper-Collins and Charles' involvement was at most editorial. It is therefore indeed the creation of a "philosopher king" in that kings must be good at delegation.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    >The whole Fibonacci/nature connection has of course been debunked for about two decades. What? No. Wrong. You are just seeking to trash him. You are looking for anything. These little petty critiques. Why? Also, it isn’t ghost writing when you credit the authors. If I was a prince, I’d be getting help to write my book too. Nice to credit his collaborators. Obviously the topic is his choice, he obviously cares a lot about it. I’m telling you — after reviewing hundreds of scientific journal papers and books in this topic area, his book has a lot to offer! It is deeply theoretical but also practical — eg his community centered development approach.

dr_dshiv 4y ago

You haven’t read it. You’ve read flame reviews and you are just piling on. I’ve read it closely and followed the references. Calling it a “stupid, stupid book” betrays your ignorance.

StrictDabbler 4y ago
I have the epub of the book right here. I read it as a result of Charles ascending the throne. It was easy to read it quickly because everything in it I have already read somewhere else. It's trite, stupid, and surprisingly short. Very little in it is actively wrong (except for the weird mysticism) but absolutely nothing is novel. It might be passable as a couple of chapters in a high-school textbook about environmental sustainability written by an entry-level copywriting intern. Oh, wait! It was written by two Harper-Collins textbook staffers and Charles' involvement was... well, who knows. The chapter on the Fibonacci sequence in particular is disappointing and effectively plagiarized from countless "science for the masses" sources that we've all been exposed to before. The whole Fibonacci/nature connection has of course been debunked for about two decades. I'm interested in your argument "if you dislike this book, you can't possibly have read it," but not very interested. There isn't a single thing in this book that I and every moderately bright student of my acquaintance didn't already know at the age of 14, bar the details of Charles' own land-holdings and the few events in that have happened in the last three decades. Oddly few events in the book happened in the last three decades, though. To call him a "philosopher King" on the basis of this text is absolutely laughable and verges on shameful. Edit: Perhaps my favorite gaffe in the whole book is the inclusion of a picture of the marbled cone snail (conus marmoreus) in a different chapter than the Fibonacci sequence nonsense. Charles isn't even sufficiently up to date on his numerological woo to have gone on about the remarkable connection between the marbled and textile snails and cellular automata. Instead the caption just says "Marbled cone shell. The deadly poisons produced by this and other cone shells could provide major medical benefits, but only if we prevent the extinction of these remarkable creatures." Further edit: I have been too hard on Charles. After reviewing the credits and references, as you recommended, I must conclude the book was ghost-written by two professional textbook authors employed by Harper-Collins and Charles' involvement was at most editorial. It is therefore indeed the creation of a "philosopher king" in that kings must be good at delegation.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  >The whole Fibonacci/nature connection has of course been debunked for about two decades. What? No. Wrong. You are just seeking to trash him. You are looking for anything. These little petty critiques. Why? Also, it isn’t ghost writing when you credit the authors. If I was a prince, I’d be getting help to write my book too. Nice to credit his collaborators. Obviously the topic is his choice, he obviously cares a lot about it. I’m telling you — after reviewing hundreds of scientific journal papers and books in this topic area, his book has a lot to offer! It is deeply theoretical but also practical — eg his community centered development approach.