Z-Bate! #1 {Exchange Two} Faith, Reason & The Four Quadrants
Posted on Feb 7th, 2007
by 
Julian
Julian
Excellent responses C4. Did I mention that I love this shit!?
So pleased that you brought in Wliber's absolutely relevant and elegantly related concept of "three basic eyes (or modes) of knowing: the eye of flesh (empiricism), the eye of mind (rationalism), and the eye of contemplation (mysticism). "
I think I'll elaborate just a little on these three distinct ways of knowing for a moment, and then relate them back to your first response. As I emphasized in my riff on The Four Quadrants, I think it is useful to think not only about how Integral Theory relates different disciplines to each-other, but how within that relationship is implied an even more defined understanding of the differences between those disciplines, quadrants, and in this case - modes of knowing...
FLESH
The eye of flesh or empiricism clearly has to do with what can be known in the external world through the senses and their technological extensions, yes? Thus, even though physics is about forces we cannot see, or about levels of matter that are very, very tiny, it is still an empirical, external, eye of flesh mode of knowing. We are still observing matter. A purely empirical bias would say that "if i cannot kick it it is not real." In this case "kicking" is still inclusive of "electron microscope-ing" - as long as it is empirically provable it can be said to exist.
Now, in it's healthy form, empiricism is based in the desire not to mistakenly or naively embrace explanations for reality that have not been tested, as such it is incredibly sound and reasonable. Contrary to the bad rap it gets in spiritual circles, it is also actually a way of keeping the inquiry open! Empiricism draws a line in the sand and says "on this side of the line are things we have some provable, repeatable knowledge about, and on this side of the line are the things about which we as yet do not have that provable repeatable knowledge - let's keep looking!"
From the empirical standpoint, validity claims have to do with what can be "seen" using that "eye" or mode of knowing. All of us are empirical in the way we drive (thankfully!), boil water (good idea not to get any on your wrist while pouring into the cup, no?), use our computers (yeah, you gotta plug it in first...) and engage in just about any activity in the physical world, even (and especially) moving from downward facing dog into warrior two requires that we trust the eye of flesh - (force, gravity and using the senses to navigate through space and time) and even when we learn how to do something new that our minds previously might have thought impossible, we have not transcended the eye of flesh, merely expanded our mental container for what is possible within our physical experience - while following an empirical process.
MIND
As to the eye of mind or rationalism, well this is one level deeper than experience, information or perception verifiable by the senses. The eye of mind transcends yet includes the eye of flesh. What does that actually mean? The easiest way to get into this is to use the examples of mathematics and philosophical logic. These are abstract disciplines that have their own internal rules. These internal rules are not necessarily provable to the eye of flesh - BUT they do operate on the domain perceived by eye of flesh in demonstrable ways. In the case of mathematics this is obvious, but still extraordinary. Take for example the legendary space travel incident portrayed in the movie Apollo 13. After an explosion in space caused serious problems for the moon-landing mission, a team of problem-solvers on planet earth were able to figure out, using mathematics - abstract eye of mind equations, how to get that spacecraft around the back of the moon and back for a splashdown landing in the ocean!
When we say that mathematics transcends mere eye of flesh observations and proofs, we mean that it goes into an abstract realm and makes calculations and proofs in ways that do not rely on the senses, but rather on the eye of mind.
However, when we say that it includes the eye of flesh we mean precisely what the example above illustrates, which is that mathematical equations, in this case - vector calculus, were able to operate on physical reality (the domain of the eye of flesh) in a way that maintained coherence and congruity with that brutally exacting domain. There is an inexorable relationship between the domains, and the accuracy of that relationship defines the usefulness, intelligence and health of how it's method is being applied.
Philosophical logic is another example of the eye of mind. Logic uses rules that determine the truth or falsity of certain statements based on the relationships of words to each-other and to what they signify in the domain of empirical knowing. Logic insists on congruity and coherence and helps us to know whether or not truth is being adequately expressed in the mental abstract form of language. There is a science to the eye of mind, and while it is abstract, it is not vague or relative.
SPIRIT
This brings us to the eye of spirit or contemplation. Now this mode is one step even further removed form empiricism, but as we have seen, in this nested holarchy of being and perceiving, each level transcends yet includes it's predecessors. We are now deeper in interiority than the eye of mind, which was deeper in interiority than the eye of flesh.
Nonetheless, the scientific method applied at the level of the eye of spirit is no less rigorous than at the eye of flesh or the eye of mind. Exercising the eye of spirit requires that one enter into actual spiritual practice or contemplation. Like any other science this is an endeavor in which it takes many years to gain even the most basic understanding. Like any other worthwhile human endeavor, there are standard exercises, experiments and problems that one cuts one's teeth on before graduating to still other standard exercises, experiments and problems. This is a more refined discipline, but it is no more relative than mathematics, nor more "anything goes" than philosophical logic.
We apply the eye of spirit when we meditate. If the eye of mind can step back and operate on the domain of the eye of flesh with mental abstraction, so too the eye of spirit, when properly trained, can step back and operate on the domain of the eye of mind. In the case of meditation practice (an actual contemplative exercise) we learn to observe the workings of the mind with the eye of spirit. Through observing the workings of the mind we gain insight and develop wisdom and compassion - the fruits of contemplative practice. We also enter into even deeper states of consciousness that are not available to mere physical or mental perception. in these states we make contact with layers of our own being/consciousness that can only be described as spiritual and we enter into states of consciousness that are quite different than our ordinary experience - altered states of consciousness.
We can go more deeply into altered states of consciousness later, as there is a lot to say there, but for now let's just say this:
* There is a huge distinction to be made between the altered state experience itself and it's subsequent interpretation.
* This distinction gets examined and refined in the gradual and grueling process of maturing spiritual practice that exercises the eye of spirit.
* Emotive wishful thinking beliefs are absolutely decimated in that fiery process.
* Spiritual truth is no less exacting than whether Apollo 13 splashes down in the ocean or shatters into a million pieces against Mount Kilimanjaro.
Conclusion
Now, i think we both agree that the kind of religious belief that Dawkins is attacking is not that which is based in any of the three sciences being discussed. Contemplative discipline is almost completely absent from faith-based, literal mythic belief as it is embraced by the vast majority of the world's population. Invalidating this kind of religious belief as completely unscientific is actually accurate, whether we are talking about empirical, rational, or contemplative modes of knowing. All three have validity claims - and literal mythic religion, (as well as naive magical thinking for that matter ) are to the eye of spirit what an extremely poor understanding of addition and subtraction are to the eye of mind, and what something like phrenology is to the eye of flesh.
Dawkins is not addressing deep spiritual practice when he eviscerates religion. He is not doing so precisely because we have largely forgotten the eye of spirit, and religion as we know it is almost completely devoid of the eye of spirit - though remnants remain and are practiced by rare mystics and theologians whose beliefs do not look recognizably anything like those held by the vast majority of religious adherents today.
James Randi is not attacking the eye of spirit when he debunks charlatans, nor is he doing anything genuinely spiritual any harm (as I know you agree) - for we are brought closer to an authentic experience of spirit by negating what it is demonstrably not.
As you say, the vast majority of what passes for the psychic or paranormal is to the eye of mind again akin to what pulling a rabbit out of the hat is to the eye of flesh and what constructing a clever palindrome is to the eye of mind. Nothing more.
There are powerful, enduring, transformative awakenings into a deep relationship to truth, beauty and goodness available via the scientific method of eye of spirit, but when one is actually engaged in serious practices of this ilk - the lesser and distorted, unscientific claims of 99% of religion as commonly believed and 99% of the psychic/paranormal fascination as commonly engaged are discarded like Lego's. As i mentioned before, things do not get more relative when we move into this domain - in fact as Wilber points out, in established practice settings where the eye of spirit is being developed there are "communities of the adequate" that determine, based on their familiarity with the territory, whether or not the aspirant is making genuine progress or getting caught in the kinds of delusions, wishful thinking, narcissistic regression, and egoic-omnipotence fantasy that marks much of the New Age romance with "spirituality."
Sorry to be so long-winded.
Let me wrap up by agreeing with you - yes, there is cautious and conditional eye of flesh empirical proof for the existence of certain kinds of psi - but this in no way implies that we should be any less rigorous, or see this as carte blanch to "believe" naively in all manner of "possibilities."
We should rather ask ourselves, just as we would with altered states or any other experimental data - what does this actually mean, what does it not mean - where do we draw the line between what we now feel more or less convinced of - and what is our next hypothesis?
As far as what is plausible viz psi vs parallel universes - this is fun speculation (especially for theoretical physicists) but for the moment somewhat beside the point. It's possible that we are all inside a computer program called The Matrix and are actually being used as Duracell batteries for The Machines to feed off, and all of reality is actually a computer generated illusion..... KEWL!
The problem as I see it is that the reduction of any of the quadrants or modes of knowing can happen in any direction. Those who champion the subjective can deny the objective or claim foolishly that ALL of the so-called objective realm is inferior to/under the power of the subjective - The Secret anyone? On the other end, the rigid empiricists can claim that only the objective is real and all talk of subjective interiority is meaningless, unprovable and merely a product of superior things that are empirically measurable? Both are egregious mistakes.
it is also an egregious mistake to take literally the mythic claims of any scripture - and the consequences are apparent to anyone paying attention.
The other problem is that (as you have pointed out) within each quadrant or mode of knowing there is actually a developmental process that reveals discrete levels of depth that have access to more complete understandings of the truth being accessed through that "eye."
You are right, Dawkins does not understand this, nor does he claim to - his critique would benefit greatly from the addition of some Integral/SD nuance - but that's where we come into the picture! However, as much as it would be enhanced by them, his critique is not refuted one iota by Integral Theory or Spiral Dynamics.
Lastly, i have said elsewhere that I find Dawkins to be quite in awe of the natural world and that his expression of spirituality lies in his reverence for evolution, humanity and reality itself - here he is reading from his most recent book. Skip ahead to about 4:10 to hear what I mean. Also, notice his beautiful distinction between "supernatural religion" and "Einsteinian religion."
Here is C4Chaos' reply to Exchange Two.
So pleased that you brought in Wliber's absolutely relevant and elegantly related concept of "three basic eyes (or modes) of knowing: the eye of flesh (empiricism), the eye of mind (rationalism), and the eye of contemplation (mysticism). "
I think I'll elaborate just a little on these three distinct ways of knowing for a moment, and then relate them back to your first response. As I emphasized in my riff on The Four Quadrants, I think it is useful to think not only about how Integral Theory relates different disciplines to each-other, but how within that relationship is implied an even more defined understanding of the differences between those disciplines, quadrants, and in this case - modes of knowing...
FLESH
The eye of flesh or empiricism clearly has to do with what can be known in the external world through the senses and their technological extensions, yes? Thus, even though physics is about forces we cannot see, or about levels of matter that are very, very tiny, it is still an empirical, external, eye of flesh mode of knowing. We are still observing matter. A purely empirical bias would say that "if i cannot kick it it is not real." In this case "kicking" is still inclusive of "electron microscope-ing" - as long as it is empirically provable it can be said to exist.
Now, in it's healthy form, empiricism is based in the desire not to mistakenly or naively embrace explanations for reality that have not been tested, as such it is incredibly sound and reasonable. Contrary to the bad rap it gets in spiritual circles, it is also actually a way of keeping the inquiry open! Empiricism draws a line in the sand and says "on this side of the line are things we have some provable, repeatable knowledge about, and on this side of the line are the things about which we as yet do not have that provable repeatable knowledge - let's keep looking!"
From the empirical standpoint, validity claims have to do with what can be "seen" using that "eye" or mode of knowing. All of us are empirical in the way we drive (thankfully!), boil water (good idea not to get any on your wrist while pouring into the cup, no?), use our computers (yeah, you gotta plug it in first...) and engage in just about any activity in the physical world, even (and especially) moving from downward facing dog into warrior two requires that we trust the eye of flesh - (force, gravity and using the senses to navigate through space and time) and even when we learn how to do something new that our minds previously might have thought impossible, we have not transcended the eye of flesh, merely expanded our mental container for what is possible within our physical experience - while following an empirical process.
MIND
As to the eye of mind or rationalism, well this is one level deeper than experience, information or perception verifiable by the senses. The eye of mind transcends yet includes the eye of flesh. What does that actually mean? The easiest way to get into this is to use the examples of mathematics and philosophical logic. These are abstract disciplines that have their own internal rules. These internal rules are not necessarily provable to the eye of flesh - BUT they do operate on the domain perceived by eye of flesh in demonstrable ways. In the case of mathematics this is obvious, but still extraordinary. Take for example the legendary space travel incident portrayed in the movie Apollo 13. After an explosion in space caused serious problems for the moon-landing mission, a team of problem-solvers on planet earth were able to figure out, using mathematics - abstract eye of mind equations, how to get that spacecraft around the back of the moon and back for a splashdown landing in the ocean!
When we say that mathematics transcends mere eye of flesh observations and proofs, we mean that it goes into an abstract realm and makes calculations and proofs in ways that do not rely on the senses, but rather on the eye of mind.
However, when we say that it includes the eye of flesh we mean precisely what the example above illustrates, which is that mathematical equations, in this case - vector calculus, were able to operate on physical reality (the domain of the eye of flesh) in a way that maintained coherence and congruity with that brutally exacting domain. There is an inexorable relationship between the domains, and the accuracy of that relationship defines the usefulness, intelligence and health of how it's method is being applied.
Philosophical logic is another example of the eye of mind. Logic uses rules that determine the truth or falsity of certain statements based on the relationships of words to each-other and to what they signify in the domain of empirical knowing. Logic insists on congruity and coherence and helps us to know whether or not truth is being adequately expressed in the mental abstract form of language. There is a science to the eye of mind, and while it is abstract, it is not vague or relative.
SPIRIT
This brings us to the eye of spirit or contemplation. Now this mode is one step even further removed form empiricism, but as we have seen, in this nested holarchy of being and perceiving, each level transcends yet includes it's predecessors. We are now deeper in interiority than the eye of mind, which was deeper in interiority than the eye of flesh.
Nonetheless, the scientific method applied at the level of the eye of spirit is no less rigorous than at the eye of flesh or the eye of mind. Exercising the eye of spirit requires that one enter into actual spiritual practice or contemplation. Like any other science this is an endeavor in which it takes many years to gain even the most basic understanding. Like any other worthwhile human endeavor, there are standard exercises, experiments and problems that one cuts one's teeth on before graduating to still other standard exercises, experiments and problems. This is a more refined discipline, but it is no more relative than mathematics, nor more "anything goes" than philosophical logic.
We apply the eye of spirit when we meditate. If the eye of mind can step back and operate on the domain of the eye of flesh with mental abstraction, so too the eye of spirit, when properly trained, can step back and operate on the domain of the eye of mind. In the case of meditation practice (an actual contemplative exercise) we learn to observe the workings of the mind with the eye of spirit. Through observing the workings of the mind we gain insight and develop wisdom and compassion - the fruits of contemplative practice. We also enter into even deeper states of consciousness that are not available to mere physical or mental perception. in these states we make contact with layers of our own being/consciousness that can only be described as spiritual and we enter into states of consciousness that are quite different than our ordinary experience - altered states of consciousness.
We can go more deeply into altered states of consciousness later, as there is a lot to say there, but for now let's just say this:
* There is a huge distinction to be made between the altered state experience itself and it's subsequent interpretation.
* This distinction gets examined and refined in the gradual and grueling process of maturing spiritual practice that exercises the eye of spirit.
* Emotive wishful thinking beliefs are absolutely decimated in that fiery process.
* Spiritual truth is no less exacting than whether Apollo 13 splashes down in the ocean or shatters into a million pieces against Mount Kilimanjaro.
Conclusion
Now, i think we both agree that the kind of religious belief that Dawkins is attacking is not that which is based in any of the three sciences being discussed. Contemplative discipline is almost completely absent from faith-based, literal mythic belief as it is embraced by the vast majority of the world's population. Invalidating this kind of religious belief as completely unscientific is actually accurate, whether we are talking about empirical, rational, or contemplative modes of knowing. All three have validity claims - and literal mythic religion, (as well as naive magical thinking for that matter ) are to the eye of spirit what an extremely poor understanding of addition and subtraction are to the eye of mind, and what something like phrenology is to the eye of flesh.
Dawkins is not addressing deep spiritual practice when he eviscerates religion. He is not doing so precisely because we have largely forgotten the eye of spirit, and religion as we know it is almost completely devoid of the eye of spirit - though remnants remain and are practiced by rare mystics and theologians whose beliefs do not look recognizably anything like those held by the vast majority of religious adherents today.
James Randi is not attacking the eye of spirit when he debunks charlatans, nor is he doing anything genuinely spiritual any harm (as I know you agree) - for we are brought closer to an authentic experience of spirit by negating what it is demonstrably not.
As you say, the vast majority of what passes for the psychic or paranormal is to the eye of mind again akin to what pulling a rabbit out of the hat is to the eye of flesh and what constructing a clever palindrome is to the eye of mind. Nothing more.
There are powerful, enduring, transformative awakenings into a deep relationship to truth, beauty and goodness available via the scientific method of eye of spirit, but when one is actually engaged in serious practices of this ilk - the lesser and distorted, unscientific claims of 99% of religion as commonly believed and 99% of the psychic/paranormal fascination as commonly engaged are discarded like Lego's. As i mentioned before, things do not get more relative when we move into this domain - in fact as Wilber points out, in established practice settings where the eye of spirit is being developed there are "communities of the adequate" that determine, based on their familiarity with the territory, whether or not the aspirant is making genuine progress or getting caught in the kinds of delusions, wishful thinking, narcissistic regression, and egoic-omnipotence fantasy that marks much of the New Age romance with "spirituality."
Sorry to be so long-winded.
Let me wrap up by agreeing with you - yes, there is cautious and conditional eye of flesh empirical proof for the existence of certain kinds of psi - but this in no way implies that we should be any less rigorous, or see this as carte blanch to "believe" naively in all manner of "possibilities."
We should rather ask ourselves, just as we would with altered states or any other experimental data - what does this actually mean, what does it not mean - where do we draw the line between what we now feel more or less convinced of - and what is our next hypothesis?
As far as what is plausible viz psi vs parallel universes - this is fun speculation (especially for theoretical physicists) but for the moment somewhat beside the point. It's possible that we are all inside a computer program called The Matrix and are actually being used as Duracell batteries for The Machines to feed off, and all of reality is actually a computer generated illusion..... KEWL!
The problem as I see it is that the reduction of any of the quadrants or modes of knowing can happen in any direction. Those who champion the subjective can deny the objective or claim foolishly that ALL of the so-called objective realm is inferior to/under the power of the subjective - The Secret anyone? On the other end, the rigid empiricists can claim that only the objective is real and all talk of subjective interiority is meaningless, unprovable and merely a product of superior things that are empirically measurable? Both are egregious mistakes.
it is also an egregious mistake to take literally the mythic claims of any scripture - and the consequences are apparent to anyone paying attention.
The other problem is that (as you have pointed out) within each quadrant or mode of knowing there is actually a developmental process that reveals discrete levels of depth that have access to more complete understandings of the truth being accessed through that "eye."
You are right, Dawkins does not understand this, nor does he claim to - his critique would benefit greatly from the addition of some Integral/SD nuance - but that's where we come into the picture! However, as much as it would be enhanced by them, his critique is not refuted one iota by Integral Theory or Spiral Dynamics.
Lastly, i have said elsewhere that I find Dawkins to be quite in awe of the natural world and that his expression of spirituality lies in his reverence for evolution, humanity and reality itself - here he is reading from his most recent book. Skip ahead to about 4:10 to hear what I mean. Also, notice his beautiful distinction between "supernatural religion" and "Einsteinian religion."
Dawkins in Lynchburg VA (part 1) The God Delusion
Here is C4Chaos' reply to Exchange Two.
Access: PublicTagged with: z-bate, z-bates, julian walker, c4chaos, four quadrants, belief, reason, kosmos, ken wilber, richard dawkins, james randi, new age, religion, spirituality, eye of mind, eye, of flesh, eye of spirit
C4Chaos
August 2008 
this is great, but I was hoping to see you address your relationship to trans-rational.
When I read this: Empiricism draws a line in the sand and says “on this side of the line are things we have some provable, repeatable knowledge about, and on this side of the line are the things about which we as yet do not have that provable repeatable knowledge - let's keep looking!”
I think: “Yah, but…not entirely.”
Empiricism draws TWO lines in the sand. something like this:
- Everything below this line can be empirically shown to be false. (thanks, Randi);
- Everything above that line but below the second line we can prove is true; and,
- Everything above that second line (above the provably false and above the provably true) falls into an unknown category that can not (currently) be proven to be true or false. Some of which will, of course, be shown to be false empirically while some will shown to be true while some will remain mystery.
In sum, I don't feel you give appropriate weight to the last category. I think you need to draw another line in the sand, sir. :)
It's inherently impossible to define “The Absolute”. As most zen sayings go, once it's spoken about it becomes relative to subject/object/it. I think the way to approach Dawkins is to be clearly cautious of our own misgivings about empiricism in a sense of what can be proven true and what can be proven false. His argument is not necessarily a pattern of reasoning to prove “unknowns” because we don't know the “mystery” behind it all. We don't have a basis to understand how “I can be conscious of the experience that I am conscious of my thoughts”.
Also, in most cases, definitions of “God” or such Theistic, mystical beliefs are heavily rooted in atributes (since it takes on subject/object/it) which can be flipflopping and problematic as you pointed out BUT theists do have the experience of “Absolute”, beyond space and time, beyond consciousness, agape, and what I can only use “emptiness” (because I'm Buddhist). So, I don't think it's necessarily “necessary” to be completely dogmatically rational about “mystery” and anything else we don't know to take on a true spiritual path. Most of the time I think it's a problem of language. Definitions only work to a certain extent.
Example from history of the problem with definitions/language- Spinoza defined “God” in a manner that sort of pointed to the “Absolute” but the church at the time thought he was insane because history has its own theistic interpretations. I'm sure also that these days Atheists is considered to be insane as well by the majority in the US who consider it to be “immoral”.
Atheistic or Theistic it still leads down the same path if one chooses to investigate their inner world through the “eye of contemplation”.
However, I do find it important as you stated to develop our “eye of mind” as well as “eye of flesh” and “eye of contemplation”.
here you go Julian, my response is up :)
My understanding is such that the three Eyes of knowing are not so much neatly nested in each other in a holonic fashion (empiric, rational, contemplative, in that order)as they are embedded in and enfolded in one another with an integrity that holds the nested relationship, and yet unable to say 'what came first the chicken or the egg'. Spirit and Matter birth each other….Likewise, so do the ways of seeing reality. The deeper that one enters the interiority of one's experience, the more expansively one arrives at the edge of the Kosmos. “the natural depth of each one of us(interiority) is the whole of creation(exteriority)” East is east and West is West, and indeed, they do meet, in this adventure of consciousness becoming conscious of itself.