I have been reading 'Eye to Eye: The Quest For a New Paradigm', by Ken Wilber. It relates to my thread question about the significance of spirituality. However, Wilber's line of argument is very specific and, if anything raises the issue of the limits of philosophy. But, equally it raises the limits of both science and spirituality/religion. So, I wish to examine his idea of the 'three eyes'.

His line of argument is that there are three eyes, or modes of knowledge: the sensory or empirical mode, rational thinking and contemplation. Each of the three modes of knowing 'has access to real (experiential) data in its respective realm _ to sensible data, intelligible data, and transcendible data_ and the data in each case is marked by its immediate or intuitive apprehension.

Wilber suggests that, ' Empiric- analytic science is one aspect of the knowledge to be gained in the realm of the flesh (not all all sensory knowledge is scientific; aesthetic impact, for instance). Of course, empiric-analytic science does indeed use the eye of reason, and I believe that it does use the eye of contemplation for creative insight, but all are made subservient to, or grounded in
the eye of the flesh and its data. And from being thus one aspect of the lowest eye, it came in the hands of scientists to claim all of three.'

The issue which Wilber raises is the way in which the nature of the contemplative experience was disregarded in importance. He draws upon Whitehead's criticism of the way in which "modern philosophy has been ruined" by contemplation being disregarded.

Wilber argued,
'Kant did not say God doesn't exist_ he said that that sense and scientific reason cannot grasp the Absolute. As Wittgenstein would put it" Whereof one cannot speak one must be silent", which the scientists perverted into, 'That which one cannot speak, is not there."

I could give more of Wilber's critique, but I wish to end the introductory outpost with a summary of the questions which he raises. In particular, how useful are the categories which he raises? Also, he is not trying to point to the contemplative aspects of spirituality as being superior in my understanding but looking towards them as integral aspects of understanding. To what extent is that a valid approach towards knowledge? It is on the basis of these questions that I would like to explore his picture of 'three eyes'.