What do you think?
Rate this book
The Invisible Pyramid
In 1910 young Loren Eiseley watched the passage of Halley's Comet with his father. The boy who became a famous naturalist was never again to see the spectacle except in his imagination. That childhood event contributed to the profound sense of time and space that marks The Invisible Pyramid. This collection of essays, first published shortly after Americans landed on the moon, explores inner and outer space, the vastness of the cosmos, and the limits of what can be known. Bringing poetic insight to scientific discipline, Eiseley makes connections between civilizations past and present, multiple universes, humankind, and nature.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1970
42 people are currently reading
466 people want to read
About the author
Loren Eiseley
50 books310 followersLoren Corey Eiseley (September 3, 1907 – July 9, 1977) was a highly respected anthropologist, science writer, ecologist, and poet. He published books of essays, biography, and general science in the 1950s through the 1970s.
Eiseley is best known for the poetic essay style, called the "concealed essay". He used this to explain complex scientific ideas, such as human evolution, to the general public. He is also known for his writings about humanity's relationship with the natural world; these writings helped inspire the modern environmental movement.
Eiseley is best known for the poetic essay style, called the "concealed essay". He used this to explain complex scientific ideas, such as human evolution, to the general public. He is also known for his writings about humanity's relationship with the natural world; these writings helped inspire the modern environmental movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
Read
June 1, 2021Professor Eiseley’s work is a collection of poetic essays noting the dangerous consequences of our wayward, consumption-based progress. Basically, we’re trashing the place, friends, and no one is set to do much about it, really. The essential problem is us, for we are continuing simultaneous and accelerating destructions of land, air and sea, otherwise blandly accepted to most as modern progress. How long before our finite natural resources have been substantially depleted? Will that be 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000+ years? Regardless, the time will come when the competition for those coveted inputs will invite some mighty nasty behaviors between the haves and the have-nots. And you think you got mad when your older sibling stole your candy bar when the parents were absent. The standard response to these most unwelcome, dour thoughts is that science will save the day; it always has. Professor Eiseley replies that science has been an enabler of what ails rather than an ultimate savior.
For centuries we have dreamed of intelligent beings throughout this solar system. We have been wrong; the earth we have taken for granted and treated so casually—the sunflower-shaded forest of man’s infancy—is an incredibly precious planetary jewel. We are all of us—man, beast and growing plant—aboard a space ship of limited dimensions whose journey began so long ago that we have abandoned one set of gods and are now in the process of substituting another in the shape of science.He further writes of spores and earth eaters in describing recent human attitudes and behaviors; I agree. The future appears far from perpetual harmony. Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme! Let us awaken from our trance with some haste, comrades.
May 25, 2015
When Loren Eiseley died on July 9, 1977, America and the world lost a scientist and thinker it needed to find its way out of its Faustian paradox. The title comes from Eiseley's symbol of a civilization as a pyramid that we begin working on -- one with a wide base -- that extends far beyond our grasp to complete it. I think of our plans to colonize Mars by 2030 (as if!). If we fail as a civilization, we will leave behind a pyramid that is largely invisible.
The Invisible Pyramid consists of a series of lectures delivered by Eiseley in 1969 at the University of Washington. It is far more coherent, in fact, than most series of lectures -- one that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the human animal.
As I sat in my uncomfy chair reading this book, I would suddenly come to attention upon reading thoughts that became as in engraved in granite on the surface of my mind:
The Invisible Pyramid consists of a series of lectures delivered by Eiseley in 1969 at the University of Washington. It is far more coherent, in fact, than most series of lectures -- one that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the human animal.
As I sat in my uncomfy chair reading this book, I would suddenly come to attention upon reading thoughts that became as in engraved in granite on the surface of my mind:
We have long passed the simple point at which science presented to us beneficent medicines and where, in the words of José Ortega de Gasset, science and civilization shaped by it could be regarded as the self-objectification of human reason. It is one thing successfully to plan a moon voyage; it is quite another to to solve the moral problems of a distraught, unenlightened, and confused humanity.But then, Eiseley did not foresee that science in our own time, some forty-five-odd years later, was in danger of being dragged off its pedestal by a society that proposed to replace it by an anti-intellectual pseudo-religious cult. But then, Eiseley also foresaw the possibility of that happening:
Some decades ago Henry Phillips of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology expressed this dilemma succinctly. "What will happen five minutes from now is pretty well determined," he wrote, "but as that period is gradually lengthened a larger and larger number of purely accidental occurrences are included. Ultimately a point is reached beyond which events are more than half determined by accidents which have not yet happened. Present planning loses significance when that point is reached.... Here is the fundamental dilemma of civilization.... there is serious doubt whether the way forward is known"Reading Eiseley is a humbling experience. Here there is no unimpeded march to the heights. He knows: He is holding the bones and other relics of failed civilizations in his hands.
September 12, 2017
Echoing Socrates, the Roman philosopher Seneca asks in one of his letters, “What good does it do you to go overseas, to move from city to city? If you really want to escape the things that harass you, what you’re needing is not to be in a different place but to be a different person.”
The same sentiment animates much of Loren Eiseley’s The Invisible Pyramid. This book collects a series of lectures delivered by Eiseley shortly after the Apollo moon landing. It was a heady time but Eiseley warns against scientific triumphalism and the temptations of magical thinking. Beware the intoxication of accomplishment, he says. You may travel to the stars, but at what cost and for what gain? Look at the mess we make of things here at home and ask yourself whether this is something we can in good conscience export to other worlds. The human species is poised to become, perhaps, a cosmic parasite, a spore bearer, a galactic infestation.
People have an impressive capacity for memory (especially as aided by language, etc.), but they have no lesser talent for forgetting. How is it, after all, that men of the same generation that saw hell unleashed twice in wars of near-global scale could allow themselves to indulge in utopian visions of a future beyond this planet? Would we not be planting the same species of world-eaters in any new lands we managed to reach?
We human beings have a longing for transformation that will not be educated by experience. We are blind to what we actually are and see only what we imagine we may be. Our technologies enable us only to amplify and extend our conflicted, tempestuous nature; they do not heal us.
“Every man tracks himself through life,” Thoreau wrote in his journals, and Eiseley comments: “Thoreau meant that the individual in all his reading, his traveling, his observations, would follow only his own footprints in the snows of this world. He would see what his temperament dictated, hear what voices his ears allowed him to hear, and not one whit more. This is the fate of every man. What is less well known is that civilizations, which are the products of men, are in their way equally obtuse.”
This is not to say that transformation (or transfiguration, if you like) does not occur. Eiseley would of course point out that it happens through the process of evolution, but only according to timescales that delete civilizations in the blink of an eye, and in ways that are finally unpredictable and no guarantee of moral betterment. I would suggest that transformation may happen, too, by more numinous means - means that work upon individuals more effectively than upon populations. But either way, heaven, if and when it finds us, will not be of our own making.
The same sentiment animates much of Loren Eiseley’s The Invisible Pyramid. This book collects a series of lectures delivered by Eiseley shortly after the Apollo moon landing. It was a heady time but Eiseley warns against scientific triumphalism and the temptations of magical thinking. Beware the intoxication of accomplishment, he says. You may travel to the stars, but at what cost and for what gain? Look at the mess we make of things here at home and ask yourself whether this is something we can in good conscience export to other worlds. The human species is poised to become, perhaps, a cosmic parasite, a spore bearer, a galactic infestation.
People have an impressive capacity for memory (especially as aided by language, etc.), but they have no lesser talent for forgetting. How is it, after all, that men of the same generation that saw hell unleashed twice in wars of near-global scale could allow themselves to indulge in utopian visions of a future beyond this planet? Would we not be planting the same species of world-eaters in any new lands we managed to reach?
We human beings have a longing for transformation that will not be educated by experience. We are blind to what we actually are and see only what we imagine we may be. Our technologies enable us only to amplify and extend our conflicted, tempestuous nature; they do not heal us.
“Every man tracks himself through life,” Thoreau wrote in his journals, and Eiseley comments: “Thoreau meant that the individual in all his reading, his traveling, his observations, would follow only his own footprints in the snows of this world. He would see what his temperament dictated, hear what voices his ears allowed him to hear, and not one whit more. This is the fate of every man. What is less well known is that civilizations, which are the products of men, are in their way equally obtuse.”
This is not to say that transformation (or transfiguration, if you like) does not occur. Eiseley would of course point out that it happens through the process of evolution, but only according to timescales that delete civilizations in the blink of an eye, and in ways that are finally unpredictable and no guarantee of moral betterment. I would suggest that transformation may happen, too, by more numinous means - means that work upon individuals more effectively than upon populations. But either way, heaven, if and when it finds us, will not be of our own making.
January 1, 2022
I loved his book The Immense Journey, but was less thrilled with this one. I found his prose somewhat rambling and incoherent, and it was often very difficult to understand what point he was making. I definitely don't feel like I understood the point of the entire book.
That said, the middle two chapters ("The World Eaters" and "The Spore Bearers") were both very clear and coherent, and also very beautiful. They explored the idea that man is some kind of interstellar parasite, kind of like a slime mold, that consumes all the resources in its immediate area ("world eaters") in order to launch a new seed of life upwards ("spore bearers"), in our case into space. (He didn't wonder aloud whether our own species had been seeded from some interstellar parasite; he seemed to assume this was humanity's first time eating a world and sending up spores. But I wondered.) Anyway, these chapters made me feel at ease with humanity's current status, which is a rare feat. They made me feel that our consumption of the world's resources was not in vain, since that was how we would get the energy we needed to spread life to the rest of the cosmos; yes, we are destroying much of life here on earth, but it's in the service of more life, of spreading life farther and wider across the universe. And these chapters also made me feel comfortable with the creation of AI, with the idea that robotic or AI lifeforms are the next stage in life's development, the ones which will actually make it off of this planet. It made me feel happy to participate in the development of AI, instead of feeling like I am contributing to the destruction of all that is good. And, I mean, it's not like any of these ideas were new to me. But somehow the framing in these chapters, and Eiseley's prose, made me feel ok about all this stuff in a way that I rarely have in the last few years.
If the entire book was like those two middle chapters I would have given it 5 stars. But unfortunately I found the rest of the book to be incoherent, so I'm giving the whole thing 3 stars. Yet I continue to have vast respect for Loren Eiseley. May he rest in peace. I am sorry he did not live to see the return of Halley's comet.
That said, the middle two chapters ("The World Eaters" and "The Spore Bearers") were both very clear and coherent, and also very beautiful. They explored the idea that man is some kind of interstellar parasite, kind of like a slime mold, that consumes all the resources in its immediate area ("world eaters") in order to launch a new seed of life upwards ("spore bearers"), in our case into space. (He didn't wonder aloud whether our own species had been seeded from some interstellar parasite; he seemed to assume this was humanity's first time eating a world and sending up spores. But I wondered.) Anyway, these chapters made me feel at ease with humanity's current status, which is a rare feat. They made me feel that our consumption of the world's resources was not in vain, since that was how we would get the energy we needed to spread life to the rest of the cosmos; yes, we are destroying much of life here on earth, but it's in the service of more life, of spreading life farther and wider across the universe. And these chapters also made me feel comfortable with the creation of AI, with the idea that robotic or AI lifeforms are the next stage in life's development, the ones which will actually make it off of this planet. It made me feel happy to participate in the development of AI, instead of feeling like I am contributing to the destruction of all that is good. And, I mean, it's not like any of these ideas were new to me. But somehow the framing in these chapters, and Eiseley's prose, made me feel ok about all this stuff in a way that I rarely have in the last few years.
If the entire book was like those two middle chapters I would have given it 5 stars. But unfortunately I found the rest of the book to be incoherent, so I'm giving the whole thing 3 stars. Yet I continue to have vast respect for Loren Eiseley. May he rest in peace. I am sorry he did not live to see the return of Halley's comet.
February 3, 2010
In this collection of essays Eiseley is feeling grumpy about the moon landing and the unrealistic hope placed on space exploration and technology.
To Eiseley, space exploration is an invisible pyramid: an amazing, yet petty achievment that does not even leave a pretty landmark behind. Man is in the slime-mold stage, firing spores into space in hopes of continuing our race. He makes it quite clear that a hope to eventually leave this home planet is delusional. He decries our habit of using creative innovation to divorce humanity from his origins, abusing new discoveries before we've thought about the consequences.
As usual with Eiseley, a brilliant stew of references and quotes from philosophers, anthropologists, scientists, and poets.
To Eiseley, space exploration is an invisible pyramid: an amazing, yet petty achievment that does not even leave a pretty landmark behind. Man is in the slime-mold stage, firing spores into space in hopes of continuing our race. He makes it quite clear that a hope to eventually leave this home planet is delusional. He decries our habit of using creative innovation to divorce humanity from his origins, abusing new discoveries before we've thought about the consequences.
As usual with Eiseley, a brilliant stew of references and quotes from philosophers, anthropologists, scientists, and poets.
July 23, 2023
Does going to space make humanity better? Discuss.
Absolutely, incandescently wonderful. Erudite, thoughtful, lively, and ever so readable.
You'll never read someone else like Eiseley.
Absolutely, incandescently wonderful. Erudite, thoughtful, lively, and ever so readable.
You'll never read someone else like Eiseley.
February 18, 2010
Thanks for the recommendation. I found myself really relating to his almost casual style of thought exploration, and despite some reservations I had with his admiration for Francis Bacon I found myself unable to essentially disagree with anything he said. He has a bravery to try to objectively consider ideas that conflict with his personal prejudices, like the possibility that there is an innate human drive to consume the planet until no option remains but escape to outer space. After a long discussion of this possibility and its implications, he concludes that our destructiveness is not innate as demonstrated by our four million years of hunting and gathering.
He distinguishes this long experience of our "first world" of nature from our more recent immersion in the "second world" of culture. Complex agricultural society plunged us exclusively into this second world, enabling us for the first time to observe nature with the detachment that would give rise to modern science, the "invisible pyramid." (p.87) Before that, earlier civilizations devoted similar attention and energy to the construction of the real pyramids which memorialized their belief that the second world is of primary importance.
We, the "world eaters," continue to manifest this now demonstrably mistaken belief in our current society as we gobble up every non-renewable resource as fast as we can. Eiseley says that, propelled by modern science, we are the most aggressive society in history, that "the future has become our primary obsession." (p.105) We took to heart all of Bacon's scientific genius, but we ignored his belief that the all learning should contribute to the enlightened life. (p.69)
Science, and the epistemology of any culture, pursues a comprehensive understanding of the natural world that is meaningful to us in cultural terms. While our modern science is of great value on its own terms, on a larger scale, its value is less certain. Through myth, past cultures "had achieved what modern man in his thickening shell of technology is only now seeking unsuccessfully to accomplish." (p.114)
The question that arises to me is, wrapped up in these unquestionables of science and technology, is there a kind of social power that desperately needs to be questioned with at least as much vigor as the power of the state and capital? Eiseley does not break it down this way, and I suspect he would resist my doing so. He saw the hippies (contemporary to Eiseley's writing) as another manifestation of the same rejection of tradition--"Faustian hunger" (p.109)--that remains our culture's greatest pride and most lethal attribute. He is conservative because change--restlessness--is what drives the world eaters. But his conservative impulse that would be desirable in a sustainable culture seems incompatible with the task of changing our unsustainable one.
This is probably the source of the resignation I detected, which bothered me a little bit throughout the work. In the end Eiseley expresses a sincere and heartfelt love for the world: we must make a "conscious reentry into the sunflower forest" (p.155) which our culture has turned into "an instrument," a "mere source of materials." (p.143) If we succeed in doing so, he imagines that we will have realized something of the "axial" values of Christ, Buddha, Confucius, and Lao-Tse. But when he associates the social tumult of the 1960s with the culture of the world eaters, he presents a real challenge to the possibility of the social revolution that is required to achieve the end he desires.
He distinguishes this long experience of our "first world" of nature from our more recent immersion in the "second world" of culture. Complex agricultural society plunged us exclusively into this second world, enabling us for the first time to observe nature with the detachment that would give rise to modern science, the "invisible pyramid." (p.87) Before that, earlier civilizations devoted similar attention and energy to the construction of the real pyramids which memorialized their belief that the second world is of primary importance.
We, the "world eaters," continue to manifest this now demonstrably mistaken belief in our current society as we gobble up every non-renewable resource as fast as we can. Eiseley says that, propelled by modern science, we are the most aggressive society in history, that "the future has become our primary obsession." (p.105) We took to heart all of Bacon's scientific genius, but we ignored his belief that the all learning should contribute to the enlightened life. (p.69)
Science, and the epistemology of any culture, pursues a comprehensive understanding of the natural world that is meaningful to us in cultural terms. While our modern science is of great value on its own terms, on a larger scale, its value is less certain. Through myth, past cultures "had achieved what modern man in his thickening shell of technology is only now seeking unsuccessfully to accomplish." (p.114)
The question that arises to me is, wrapped up in these unquestionables of science and technology, is there a kind of social power that desperately needs to be questioned with at least as much vigor as the power of the state and capital? Eiseley does not break it down this way, and I suspect he would resist my doing so. He saw the hippies (contemporary to Eiseley's writing) as another manifestation of the same rejection of tradition--"Faustian hunger" (p.109)--that remains our culture's greatest pride and most lethal attribute. He is conservative because change--restlessness--is what drives the world eaters. But his conservative impulse that would be desirable in a sustainable culture seems incompatible with the task of changing our unsustainable one.
This is probably the source of the resignation I detected, which bothered me a little bit throughout the work. In the end Eiseley expresses a sincere and heartfelt love for the world: we must make a "conscious reentry into the sunflower forest" (p.155) which our culture has turned into "an instrument," a "mere source of materials." (p.143) If we succeed in doing so, he imagines that we will have realized something of the "axial" values of Christ, Buddha, Confucius, and Lao-Tse. But when he associates the social tumult of the 1960s with the culture of the world eaters, he presents a real challenge to the possibility of the social revolution that is required to achieve the end he desires.
May 26, 2010
I was ill prepared for how wonderful this book is. Most of what I have ever read of cultural anthropology has been rather tedious and flecked with egoism and hope that some propounded theory will provides the metaphysical glue which hold long enough to achieve notoriety. Eisley writes with no such prejudices and with so much joy that it is easy to accept his statement that his childhood finally ended when he was 50.
One has to admire someone who is capable of absorbing the world around him as a child. During one of his sojourns into the cold dark winter, he discovers a discarded Christmas tree and strokes it apologetically and finally takes it home for a closing ceremony which he believes that it missed. This is to say his observations are childlike rather than childish.
His reading breadth is nothing short of amazing and I was glad to see him acknowledge the genius of Francis Bacon as the father of modern empirical science. It is not the supposition or the imagining of what something of our world is like, but the discovery which is significant. It cannot be stated strongly enough how much such thinking changed our world to the point where the statement is almost obvious.
While his chapter on World Eaters was profound, the comparison of men and their ideas as spore bearers was beautiful imagery. Our ideas are necessarily thrown out into the world .. and there is great waste about such because they are a mere best guess of a direction, but generally it is hoped that a few will be pollinated and thrive. It gives one a sense of both the necessity of having created various ideas and the reason they never germinate: after all, he suggests, nature is rather wasteful too!
Man is not a creature to be contained in a solitary skull vault, nor is measurable as ,say, a saber-toothed cat or a bison is measurable. Something, the rainbow dancing before his eyes, the word uttered by the cave fire at evening, eludes us and runs onward. It is gone when we come with our spades upon the cold dead ashes of the campfire four hundred thousand years removed.
This book reminds us of something which Einstein said, something those of us who seek God's closer nature ought to bear in mind more often than we do.
Man pushes onward through time as he must. The paradox remains, as he points out quoting Maritain, that God exists out of time
One has to admire someone who is capable of absorbing the world around him as a child. During one of his sojourns into the cold dark winter, he discovers a discarded Christmas tree and strokes it apologetically and finally takes it home for a closing ceremony which he believes that it missed. This is to say his observations are childlike rather than childish.
His reading breadth is nothing short of amazing and I was glad to see him acknowledge the genius of Francis Bacon as the father of modern empirical science. It is not the supposition or the imagining of what something of our world is like, but the discovery which is significant. It cannot be stated strongly enough how much such thinking changed our world to the point where the statement is almost obvious.
While his chapter on World Eaters was profound, the comparison of men and their ideas as spore bearers was beautiful imagery. Our ideas are necessarily thrown out into the world .. and there is great waste about such because they are a mere best guess of a direction, but generally it is hoped that a few will be pollinated and thrive. It gives one a sense of both the necessity of having created various ideas and the reason they never germinate: after all, he suggests, nature is rather wasteful too!
Man is not a creature to be contained in a solitary skull vault, nor is measurable as ,say, a saber-toothed cat or a bison is measurable. Something, the rainbow dancing before his eyes, the word uttered by the cave fire at evening, eludes us and runs onward. It is gone when we come with our spades upon the cold dead ashes of the campfire four hundred thousand years removed.
This book reminds us of something which Einstein said, something those of us who seek God's closer nature ought to bear in mind more often than we do.
Man pushes onward through time as he must. The paradox remains, as he points out quoting Maritain, that God exists out of time
February 16, 2021
Naturists, anthropologists, environmentalists, philosophers, and teachers, lend me your ears. This is the book for you! Loren Eiseley lived from 1907 to 1977 and is listed as all of those things in his online biography. Thankfully those diverse experiences come together wonderfully in this powerful series of essays originally delivered as a series of lectures at the University of Washington in 1969. Eiseley offers a wild sense of vertigo as he masterfully zooms us across spacetime to give us a sense of place in the cosmos. Did you ever read that “Pale Blue Dot” passage by Carl Sagan? If you liked that, you’ll love this book. I think this is the book I was always hoping to find whenever I picked up A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking which I found difficult. Also great for folks who loved Sapiens or The Power of Myth.
January 28, 2021
Reflections of a Magnificent Thinker and Empathetic Human
Read this last century. Second reading.
Still, right on target after 50 years. Eiseley’s effort to refocus our thought to the dangers of continuing planetary insults remains important today.
Eiseley would have said, “You go girl!” to Greta.
Read this last century. Second reading.
Still, right on target after 50 years. Eiseley’s effort to refocus our thought to the dangers of continuing planetary insults remains important today.
Eiseley would have said, “You go girl!” to Greta.
April 26, 2014
Language as a prison. Humanity as a spore. Science as an invisible pyramid.
What is the point of conquering space if earth is in ruin?
The ideas in this book need time to digest.
What is the point of conquering space if earth is in ruin?
The ideas in this book need time to digest.
March 7, 2020
I picked up this book completely by accident whilst searching the wrong shelf in the library. The happen-chance way in which the text arrived in my hands is evocative of its expansive and mythic narrative. This is a tender and earnest call for humanity to balance their desires with self preservation for the planet. It is also a text nearly 50 years old. Moreover it is a reminder of our short history as a species and the chance and coincidence that has enabled us to evolve.
Eiseley litters his writing with contrasts that span cultural anthropology, biology, and physics. They are also rich with personal and wondrous anecdotes. Midway through the text he reveals that the invisible pyramid is in fact science. The huge achievements of ancient civilisations like the pyramids at Giza, speak of the triumphs of human ability and conquest. In our age science, itself a creation and idea, is that invisible pyramid.
More inspiringly Eiseley lingers on our enduring connection to the past: Our animal past, and our ancient past that persists as a shadow that the modern human casts. He highlights that as we progress the knowledge at our fingertips extends, deepens, and is condensed.
“So fast does this change progress that a growing child strives to master the institutional customs of a society which, compared with the pace of past history, compresses centuries of change into his lifetime.” Pg 22.
We are heirs to a legacy of dense biological, cultural, and intellectual change. This we can all identify in the speed of technology. Patricia Crone in Preindustrial Societies, speaks of the depth of current change as representing no longer a “generation gap”, but a “culture gap.” Eiseley portrays this sentiment in words written in 1967 that are still potent today. We have clearly not slowed down.
“Psychological stresses appear. The current generation feels increasingly alienated from its predecessors. There is a quickening of vibrations running throughout society.” pg 89.
He has words of caution for the Anthropologist and for contemporary society, and our economic and political systems.
“Modern man, on the other hand, has come to look upon nature as a thing outside himself - an object to be manipulated or discarded at will. It is his technology and its vocabulary that makes his primary world. If, like the primitive, he has a sacred centre, it is here. Whatever is potential must be unrolled, brought into being at any cost. No other course is conceived as possible. The economic system demands it.” pg 59.
What is most beguiling to me about Eiseley’s work is how he is acutely aware of the rhythm of the natural world and of human culture. Hauntingly this theme has been stalking me and as I finished Eiseley’s text I found people around me were echoing his ideas. An audience member in a lecture this week said “cultures oscillate, they rise and they fall”, a student commented to me revising one of our readings that “ethnicity needs to be lost in order to be preserved.” A recurring interest of mine indeed, but I turn to Eiseley,
“The best way to be resurrected is to be forgotten.” pg 102.
“Sometimes an individual, perhaps a great artist, or a civilisation, has to be held off stage for a millennium or so until they can be understood.” pg 102.
And in reference to the emergence of great religious traditions, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism…
“No one can clearly determine why these prophets had such profound effects within the time at their disposal. Nor can we solve the mystery of how they came into existence across the Euro-Asiatic land mass in diverse cultures at roughly the same time.” Pg 148.
These are just a few insights to some of the mystical gems of this text. They do not do it justice.
Eiseley litters his writing with contrasts that span cultural anthropology, biology, and physics. They are also rich with personal and wondrous anecdotes. Midway through the text he reveals that the invisible pyramid is in fact science. The huge achievements of ancient civilisations like the pyramids at Giza, speak of the triumphs of human ability and conquest. In our age science, itself a creation and idea, is that invisible pyramid.
More inspiringly Eiseley lingers on our enduring connection to the past: Our animal past, and our ancient past that persists as a shadow that the modern human casts. He highlights that as we progress the knowledge at our fingertips extends, deepens, and is condensed.
“So fast does this change progress that a growing child strives to master the institutional customs of a society which, compared with the pace of past history, compresses centuries of change into his lifetime.” Pg 22.
We are heirs to a legacy of dense biological, cultural, and intellectual change. This we can all identify in the speed of technology. Patricia Crone in Preindustrial Societies, speaks of the depth of current change as representing no longer a “generation gap”, but a “culture gap.” Eiseley portrays this sentiment in words written in 1967 that are still potent today. We have clearly not slowed down.
“Psychological stresses appear. The current generation feels increasingly alienated from its predecessors. There is a quickening of vibrations running throughout society.” pg 89.
He has words of caution for the Anthropologist and for contemporary society, and our economic and political systems.
“Modern man, on the other hand, has come to look upon nature as a thing outside himself - an object to be manipulated or discarded at will. It is his technology and its vocabulary that makes his primary world. If, like the primitive, he has a sacred centre, it is here. Whatever is potential must be unrolled, brought into being at any cost. No other course is conceived as possible. The economic system demands it.” pg 59.
What is most beguiling to me about Eiseley’s work is how he is acutely aware of the rhythm of the natural world and of human culture. Hauntingly this theme has been stalking me and as I finished Eiseley’s text I found people around me were echoing his ideas. An audience member in a lecture this week said “cultures oscillate, they rise and they fall”, a student commented to me revising one of our readings that “ethnicity needs to be lost in order to be preserved.” A recurring interest of mine indeed, but I turn to Eiseley,
“The best way to be resurrected is to be forgotten.” pg 102.
“Sometimes an individual, perhaps a great artist, or a civilisation, has to be held off stage for a millennium or so until they can be understood.” pg 102.
And in reference to the emergence of great religious traditions, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism…
“No one can clearly determine why these prophets had such profound effects within the time at their disposal. Nor can we solve the mystery of how they came into existence across the Euro-Asiatic land mass in diverse cultures at roughly the same time.” Pg 148.
These are just a few insights to some of the mystical gems of this text. They do not do it justice.
May 7, 2024
Already the first line of the prologue was truly something and sums up what this book is about: ‘Man would not be man if his dreams did not exceed his grasp.’
After having read ‘The Immense Journey’ by Loren Eiseley I figured I had to read some more of his, because I really enjoyed that one. I was immediately drawn to this particular book because the book description was related to various space topics (I’m an astrophysicist and am naturally very drawn to that).
I loved the story in the beginning of the book about Eiseley watching Halley’s comet with his father, which ‘Because of my father and the promise I had made, a kind of personal bond has been projected between me and the comet’.
I also did enjoy his realistic view about space travel and men claiming to have ‘mastered the universe’ by going to the Moon. He further writes about topics such as our limitations in space and our life on Earth (and how we affect our precious planet). He, of course, also touches on money-spending and the purpose of doing space travel and our dreams of space.
It is a book that makes you contemplate why we long for space and what we hope to find or achieve there – and if there really is something for us there. I found it refreshing to read about this from someone outside of the field.
I have highlighted quite a few passages in this book that I thought were remarkable. But generally this book didn’t turn out to be as enjoyable as ‘The Immense Journey’ for me. I often found it difficult to get a clear meaning from his writing. It was too cryptic, or perhaps overly poetic. And the anecdotes and thoughts were a bit all over the place. I can, however, see myself trying to read it again someday and perhaps I will glean more from it then.
After having read ‘The Immense Journey’ by Loren Eiseley I figured I had to read some more of his, because I really enjoyed that one. I was immediately drawn to this particular book because the book description was related to various space topics (I’m an astrophysicist and am naturally very drawn to that).
I loved the story in the beginning of the book about Eiseley watching Halley’s comet with his father, which ‘Because of my father and the promise I had made, a kind of personal bond has been projected between me and the comet’.
I also did enjoy his realistic view about space travel and men claiming to have ‘mastered the universe’ by going to the Moon. He further writes about topics such as our limitations in space and our life on Earth (and how we affect our precious planet). He, of course, also touches on money-spending and the purpose of doing space travel and our dreams of space.
It is a book that makes you contemplate why we long for space and what we hope to find or achieve there – and if there really is something for us there. I found it refreshing to read about this from someone outside of the field.
I have highlighted quite a few passages in this book that I thought were remarkable. But generally this book didn’t turn out to be as enjoyable as ‘The Immense Journey’ for me. I often found it difficult to get a clear meaning from his writing. It was too cryptic, or perhaps overly poetic. And the anecdotes and thoughts were a bit all over the place. I can, however, see myself trying to read it again someday and perhaps I will glean more from it then.
February 3, 2023
This small book provides so many profound insights. While I may not share his deep pessimism on issues like space exploration, which was a new development when he wrote this book, Eiseley’s way of writing is captivating. He perfectly balances knowledge of the technical and scientific with history, sociology, and poetry. His judgements often seem dark or harsh, such as “Really we create nothing. We merely plagiarize nature”, and his tone is often brooding. But this is because of his great reverence for nature, and his frustration with humanity’s ignorance or insensitivity of how we damage the environment. Or, as Eiseley says it “Drastic innovation is disruptive to the ecological balance.” His writing is full of sharp rebukes toward the excesses of humanity. He marvels at our ingenuity and imagination, but craves that we use our creativity in wiser ways. This book was top notch and has prompt me to seek out more of Eiseley’s work.
November 16, 2023
One of the most interesting, challenging and eyewateringly beautiful books I've read in a loooong time, this collection of essays, written around the time of the first moon landings, covers a huge range of topics and concepts, mostly hung around man's development and impact on the natural world. I was a wee bit low on brain space when I read this and I had to read bits of it more than once to make sure I was actually following what Loren Eiseley was saying, but the fault there is all mine and nothing to do with is wonderful writing.
Take this piece, for example:
"In the attempt to understand his universe, man has to give away a part of himself which can never be regained -- the certainty of the animal that what it senses is actually there in the shape the eye beholds."
I mean, come on, that is just spectacular. It's saying so much with so few words.
I 100% recommend this book to you!
Take this piece, for example:
"In the attempt to understand his universe, man has to give away a part of himself which can never be regained -- the certainty of the animal that what it senses is actually there in the shape the eye beholds."
I mean, come on, that is just spectacular. It's saying so much with so few words.
I 100% recommend this book to you!
July 18, 2020
“If I dream by contrast of the eventual drift of the star travelers through the dilated time of the universe, it is because I have seen thistledown off to new worlds and am at heart a voyager who, in this modern time, still yearns for the lost country of his birth.”
“There is no parallel organism with which to compare ourselves.”
“[Man’s] final feat has as its first preliminary the invention of a way to pass knowledge through the doorway of the tomb – namely, the achievement of the written word.”
In my late mother’s copy she wrote in the margin, “a curious way to express it when one visualizes Christ as knowledge passed thro’ a tomb: the Living Word.”
“There is no parallel organism with which to compare ourselves.”
“[Man’s] final feat has as its first preliminary the invention of a way to pass knowledge through the doorway of the tomb – namely, the achievement of the written word.”
In my late mother’s copy she wrote in the margin, “a curious way to express it when one visualizes Christ as knowledge passed thro’ a tomb: the Living Word.”
July 8, 2020
Six stars. A short book of related brilliant essays by the incomparable Loren Eiseley. Here he writes, lyrically as ever, about the development of modern man, and of man's place on earth and his aspirations to go beyond its bounds. First published in 1970, fifty years later his insights resonate even more than they did at that time. Eiseley's tone can be somewhat dark, but is always graceful and exquisitely stated. In this case his style works perfectly to underline his somber warnings about the track we are on. Indispensable reading; highly recommended.
February 19, 2025
As he waits for the return of Halley's comet, Eiseley contemplates humanity's purpose on earth and our desire to leave it for the unreachable universe.
This was a short read, but I wish it went on and on. The entirety of this is art. It's poetic yet grounded. It's melancholic yet hopeful.
The verdict that humans are parasites seems inescapable, with our histories of destruction and our modern ways of living, but to be human is to know we can defy such fate. Tell me I'm right.
(I forgot when I finished reading this! These are my first thoughts. Might edit this later)
This was a short read, but I wish it went on and on. The entirety of this is art. It's poetic yet grounded. It's melancholic yet hopeful.
The verdict that humans are parasites seems inescapable, with our histories of destruction and our modern ways of living, but to be human is to know we can defy such fate. Tell me I'm right.
(I forgot when I finished reading this! These are my first thoughts. Might edit this later)
April 9, 2023
A random book I decided one day to pick up and have no regrets whatsoever uncovering the beautiful and thought-provoking messages within. The book is a collection of poetic essays that ring just as true now as at the time it was originally written. That kind of timelessness was breathtaking in its own accord.
February 26, 2017
I enjoyed most of this book. His writing is beautiful and really enjoyable to read. This book is really interesting and somewhat autobiographical at times. I will be reading much more of Eiseley's works.
October 15, 2017
A book that is necessary for all in the modern age to read.
January 29, 2020
Wow! I didn't know this was going to be so much about slime molds! Hah! I loved it!
November 18, 2021
not his best, but still very thought provoking
November 10, 2022
One of the books which set my course on science, all of the sciences and finally to environmental engineering.
April 5, 2025
Hello new favorite author. I will soon read all of you.
October 23, 2021
I was transfixed by the somewhat cryptic epilogue of the book when I read it first, I confess through a drink induced haze. The last bit struck me as particularly poetic and prophetic (given the events of 2020-21): “[Man] has mastered the plague. Now, in some final Armageddon, he confronts himself. As a boy, I once rolled dice in an empty house, playing against myself. I suppose I was afraid. It was twilight, and I forget who won. I was too young to have known that the old abandoned house in which I played was the universe. I would play for man more fiercely if the years took me back.” The book continues in a series of essays in the same poetic vein, a meditation on man and nature. I think (maybe I am wrong) Loren Eiseley, once a celebrated anthropologist, is mostly forgotten, but such a fine essayist he was. The book is tinged a bit by the anachronism of cold war fears and vocabulary, but it is still a solid read. Although to tell the truth we have probably normalized and gotten tired of the memory of that danger; nuclear Armageddon is still a distinct possibility in the dice-throw of man.
Read
October 20, 2015I must not penalize the old dudes for being old dudes. But I have been assigned a great density of them all at once, and they're getting me down. It's just...you know, I get enough of being preached at in my not-reading-life that it's hard to take from Loren Eiseley. I'm sure he is very wise, but his anthropology is outdated and his tone is unbearable.
At this point, this is a bit of a historical piece on the academics of many decades ago. I was trying to imagine what Intro to Anthropology must have been like with this guy. He is such a generalist in the four subfields of anthropology--cultural, biological, archaeology and linguistics--and in that way so unlike his modern counterparts. Few people aspire to make these kinds of sweeping statements today, and maybe I should applaud his boldness rather than choking on his racism. He does a lot of unifying various fields. It is a bold book in its way.
Still no girls in here at all--this really is just "mankind" that he's talking about. Although he occasionally does read books by girls.
At this point, this is a bit of a historical piece on the academics of many decades ago. I was trying to imagine what Intro to Anthropology must have been like with this guy. He is such a generalist in the four subfields of anthropology--cultural, biological, archaeology and linguistics--and in that way so unlike his modern counterparts. Few people aspire to make these kinds of sweeping statements today, and maybe I should applaud his boldness rather than choking on his racism. He does a lot of unifying various fields. It is a bold book in its way.
Still no girls in here at all--this really is just "mankind" that he's talking about. Although he occasionally does read books by girls.
January 12, 2014
If there were six possible stars, this book would get every one of them! Loren Eiseley is a scientist, a naturalist and a humanist. He writes beautifully and he makes you think deeply. He talks about how human kind has gotten where it is today and where it is most likely headed, and why. This book is not depressing or negative, but it does force you to realize that we are the product of choices made long, long ago and that our future on earth is very much in doubt unless we change is a major way. His kind of 'changing' is not at all about using more fuel efficient cars or recycling or moving off the grid. He suggests we have to change our very nature. We have to totally rethink what we want as a human race.
February 23, 2011
Despite being a life-long fan of science fiction, I agreed with Eiseley that the U.S. space program is suspect. While one can argue for communications and mapping satellites, maybe even a space station, the costs involved in the manned exploration of other planets at this time seem prohibitive given the miserable state of much of humanity and of the planet's ecology. Added to this is the high probability that most space exploration, including the satellites, has had military justification--just what we don't need!
March 20, 2016
Also a wonderful book by Eiseley. After The Immense Journey, I think this is my next favorite. His style takes some getting used to; for me, he gets harder to read the deeper I go into his career. The way he weaves his chapters into a grand statement about what "the invisible pyramid" is, is completely insane. I really lack the words to describe his work. I love it so much. This is one I will pick up again in the future. Now onto The Firmament of Time and Darwin's Century...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews