Make money doing the work you believe in
I tried reading scholar and philosopher Peter Kingsley’s "Reality” (2003) about Parmenides, who I have not studied closely. I was looking forward to reading it because of Kingsley’s reputation, the buzz around the book, and because it was supposed to situate the reader within an ancient worldview, not just describe it from without.
Unfortunately, the book was horrific and I can’t recommend it - I stopped after about 100 pages (and skimmed 50+ of those). Everything Kingsley states is a declaration of fact, egotistic, sure of himself. Here’s some examples:
"So often we try to convince ourselves we a reliving a full, contented life. But there is always something pulling at our heart." I don't like when he uses the declarative "we" or “our”, he doesn't get to speak for me.
"Either way, it makes no real difference to me. My job is just to tell the tale - that's all. And besides: there are something that, once they are said, there is no unsaying them. They are written in stone. And the writing on the stone is about you. And you are the stone." Super lame.
"This man Parmenides played an extraordinary, almost inconceivable, role in the west". "almost inconceivable"? This is ridiculous, hyperbolic phrasing, he diminishes himself.
"We have lost any grip on reality and been behaving like little children. It's time we started growing up." Sigh. Oh, and you’re going to teach me, big man?
"We were given a gift - and in our childishness we threw away the instructions for how to use it." I’m a child, big guy? Great, thanks. Sigh.
"The writings of Parmenides...for centuries [experts] have experimented with distorting them and torturing them until they seem to yield a sense exactly the opposite of their original meaning." How does he know with such certainty? Did he live back then? What evidence does he have that other experts don’t? (the answer is - nothing).
"But this is not mythology, or fiction. It's reality." Sigh, how does he know?
“There is absolutely nothing mystical in what I am saying. It's very simple, completely down-to-earth and practical." So he claims objectivity and rationalism for himself? On what basis?
These quotes are all from the first short portion of the book, and it doesn’t get better. This is messy, pretentious, declarative, amateurish dreck. The problem is his declarations, his exhortations, have not been proven; he has not proven the weight of his statements. How is this guy any different from a homeless guy declaring Armageddon on the street? Who is this person and why should I pay attention to what he has to say, and why? He needed to approach the topic with his credential upfront and with a huge amount of humility are carefulness, regardless of any of his prior apparently scholarly work.
Kingsley writes here neither as a mystic who admits revelation, nor as a scholar who demonstrates method, but as someone who assumes authority without naming its source - precisely the condition Jung warned produces inflation rather than insight. For readers coming from New Age spirituality or academic philosophy who haven't engaged Jung's warnings about psychic inflation, Kingsley might seem refreshing or profound. But for anyone who's metabolized the dangers of mystical certainty and values epistemic humility, this book is a textbook example of what to avoid. Hard pass.