Sensory Experience, Rational Knowledge and Contemplation: Are There Category Errors of Knowledge?

Jack Cummins

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'.

180 Proof

the nature of the contemplative experience — Jack Cummins

Explain what you / Wilbur mean by this.

Wilber ~~argued~~[asserted],
'Kant did not say God doesn't exist_ he said that that sense and scientific reason cannot grasp the Absolute.

A mere truism. Even if this weren't the case, what cognitive or existential significance would "the Absolute" have for non-absolute beings like us?

... three eyes, or modes of knowledge: the sensory or empirical mode, rational thinking and contemplation.

Ken Wilbur's "new paradigm" isn't "new" at all. The above vaguely reminds me of Spinoza's three kinds of knowing (which he derives from his distinction of inadequate and adequate perceptions (or ideas)): imagination, reason and intuition – elaborated on in the article below:

https://iep.utm.edu/spinoza/#SH4e

Questioner

In particular, how useful are the categories which he raises? — Jack Cummins

As categories of thinking, sure, they are useful, but I think it's important to separate the science from the scientist. Science as a course of study is indeed limited to what can be physically observed and measured, but it does not follow that that makes up the sum total of what captures the scientist's imagination. In fact, science revealed often leads to the asking of bigger questions. In humans, these three modes of knowing are integrated, not separate from one another.

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

I don't think that Wilber was trying to depict a new paradigm and recognised that some philosophy in the past had a more synthetic approach. He may have not been that influencd by Spinoza because I have just looked in the index and there is no entry in the volume which I am reading.

My understanding of what Wilber means by contemplation is both of speculative reflection and experience of a mystical nature. He draws upon the ideas of the Christian mystic, St Bonadventure but incorporates the general stance of meditation, suggesting that meditation is 'a sustained instrumental path of transcendence'. He also incorporates the idea of the 'perennial philosophy, stating,
'The most striking feature of the perennial philosophy/psychology is that it presents being and consciousness as a nested harvest of dimensional levels, moving from densest , and most fragmentary realms to the highest, subtlest and most unitary ones'

His understanding of the absolute is the paradox underlying all experiences, stating that 'the Absolute is both the highest state of being and the ground of all being; it is both the goal of evolution the ground of evolution; the stage of development and the reality or suchness of all .development; the highest of all conditions and the highest of all conditions and the Condiion of all conditions; the highest rung in the ladder and the wood out of which the entire ladder is made...'

I have to admit that I am not completely convinced of his line of argument in many places because he seems to be talking in riddles. However, I do think that he is into something, especially as he draws upon hermeurics as the way of human meaning which cannot be captured fully through empirical proof or the analysis of rationality.

Jack Cummins

↪Questioner

I think that Wilbef does recognise the difference between science and the scientist because he emphasise the witness state of the scientist as a phenomenological component. In a way, it could be about the partial aspects of 'truth' of the scientist, as with the partial aspects of all human knowledge.

180 Proof

My understanding of what Wilber means by contemplation is both of speculative reflection and experience of a mystical nature [ ... ] suggesting that meditation is 'a sustained instrumental path of transcendence'. — Jack Cummins

"Transcendence" to what end or for what purpose?

His understanding of the absolute is ...

And yet "Wilbur argues", which you cite, "sense and scientific reason cannot grasp the Absolute"?! Apophatics makes much more sense to me, Jack.

I like sushi

↪Jack Cummins

Everything I have read here sounds very much like it is skirting around phenomenology yet trying not to say so. Whether Wilbur is more a Heideggerian or Husserlian probably matters most (if anything).

Have you read much on phenomenology? I know this has been brought up in these forums before.

Wayfarer

His line of argument is that there are three eyes, or modes of knowledge: the sensory or empirical mode, rational thinking and contemplation. — Jack Cummins

I'm pretty sure Wilber was drawing on the traditionalist concept of the 'eye of reason'. The 'eye of reason' is what enables us to see 'the ideas' or 'forms'. Often referred to as the "eye of the soul" or omma tēs psychēs it is a metaphor used to describe our ability to understand higher (that is, rational) truths.

Plato argued that just as our physical eyes need light (from the sun) to see material objects, our minds need truth (from the "Form of the Good") to 'see Ideas'. The 'eye of the flesh' sees changing, decaying things (i.e, material particulars). The Eye of Reason (Nous) "sees" eternal, unchanging realities (like the mathematical concept of a Circle or the Idea of Justice). This is why, when you grasp an idea, you say "I see".

In ancient Greek, Nous is often translated as "intellect" or "mind." However, it isn't just "thinking" in the sense of calculating or arguing. Instead, Nous is the capacity for direct intuition.

Acording to Plato there are different levels of knowing. Dianoia is "step-by-step" reasoning (like solving a math equation and mathematical knowledge generally).

Nous and noesis - this is the "Aha!" moment where you suddenly grasp the underlying principle or the "essence" of the thing itself. It is described as a "touching" or "seeing" of the truth.

For Platonists, the "Ideas" (or Forms) are the perfect blueprints of reality. We cannot see "Beauty" herself with our eyes—we only see beautiful people or paintings. But through refining insight and philosophical training, the philosopher is able to metaphorically "gaze upon" beauty herself.

The eye of reason is the tool the soul uses to "look past" the physical version and contemplate the perfect version that exists in the realm of the Intellect.

if happiness [εὐδαιμονία, eudomonia] consists in activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be activity in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the virtue of the best part of us. Whether then this be the Intellect [νοῦς, nous], or whatever else it be that is thought to rule and lead us by nature, and to have cognizance of what is noble and divine, either as being itself also actually divine, or as being relatively the divinest part of us, it is the activity of this part of us in accordance with the virtue proper to it that will constitute perfect happiness; and it has been stated already* that this activity is the activity of contemplation [θεωρητική, theoria]. — Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle

The other point that might be mentioned is that today's scientific rationalism is very different to classical rationalism. It always seeks grounding in empirical (experimental or observational) evidence, whereas classical rationalism was more of a purely intellectual nature.

Jack Cummins

↪I like sushi

I have dipped into phenomenology and probably need to have read more to know if Wilber is comparable with Husserl.or Heidegger. I suspect that he may be more influenced by Heiddeger as he makes reference to Heidegger in the volume which I have been reading. He is particularly interested in symbolic meanings and the writing of Jurgen Habermas.

Wilber's understanding of paradoxical thinking incorporates the following:
'the results when you try to think or write about the Tao or Spirit or Buddha Nature _ is not itself spirit, nor does it disclose spirit per se'. In other words, it is not possible to go beyond an interpretative understanding of what Spirit is..

From my own reading of Wilber, the question remains to what extent is Spirit outside of the human understanding. It may be an anthropomorphic fallacy to reduce Spirit to the ideas of conscious beings.

Jack Cummins

↪Wayfarer

I think that you are right to say that Wilber draws upon ancient Greek ideas of 'reason'. It seems that he is more influenced by such ideas than by the twentieth century thinkers of reductive behaviorism. He is also interested in the idea of gnosis. He disputes the idea of mystic knowledge as having a form of 'consensual validation'. He says, 'Even though contemplative knowledge is ineffable, it is not private: it is a shared vision.' He believes that the eye of contemplation and the eye of reason involves training, and reason, have some objective, or intersubjective, existence.

Sensory Experience, Rational Knowledge and Contemplation: Are There Category Errors of Knowledge?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions