What do you think?
Rate this book
Eye to Eye: The Quest for the New Paradigm
Critiques traditional religion, modern materialistic philosophy, and popular new age theories; examines the concepts of senses, mind, and spirit; and offers a broader understanding of reality
325 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
27 people are currently reading
262 people want to read
About the author
Ken Wilber
226 books1,239 followersKenneth Earl Wilber II is an American philosopher and writer on transpersonal psychology and his own integral theory, a systematic philosophy which suggests the synthesis of all human knowledge and experience.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 22, 2021
Re-reading this book reminds me of why Ken Wilber caused such a seismic effect on my thinking 15 years ago when I first encountered his work. I recently heard economist Richard Wolff say he feels sorry for anyone who hasn't read Marx. I'd say the same about Wilber. He's a terrifically bright star in the intellectual firmament, as far as I'm able to opine on such matters. He's untangled so many areas of confusion for me that I, and a vast number of others, including those much smarter and more learned than me, inherited from the culture around issues of psycho-social and spiritual development, and how these structurally relate to each other in a comprehensive paradigm. He's a master map-maker in this regard.
I would like to have had the benefit of this developmental map much earlier in my life. It might have saved me many dead ends, wasted time and, especially, much self-sabotage that involved squashing some aspects of myself that didn't conform to the erroneous and simplistic judgments of the time—still prevalent—around what's required for personal and spiritual development. But it's precisely because of those missteps and confusions that I appreciate Wilber's work to the extent I do, and why I see it as far from being, as some complain, "too intellectual" (!), extremely *practical* for anyone wanting to wade into the daunting territory of psychological and spiritual development. Why go without a map when someone like Wilber has gone to such lengths to create one?
And yes, Wilber *is* unequivocally intellectual, but not beyond the capacity of most averagely intelligent and well motivated readers, even if, like me, you haven't read a fraction of the people he cites across different fields and wish you had! More pertinently, the notion that wielding a sharp intellect is somehow deeply inappropriate ("too intellectual!") for work that has something to do with spirituality is emblematic of the very kind of confused, stunted perspective that has so hamstrung a mature and authentic understanding of the spiritual endeavour and which Wilber is at pains to rectify via his comprehensive and nuanced paradigm. As he points out, "the very search for a new and comprehensive paradigm was generated in large measure by the knowledge claims of transcendental mysticism, predominantly Eastern in form."
If we're interested in psycho-social and spiritual development, we need to know what that development actually *is* and *is not*. This is not always clear, and has been widely misunderstood, including even by leading Western theorists, as Wilber details in his discussion on the kinds of category errors that are often made in relation to the "eyes" of flesh, soul and contemplation, and particularly in relation to the pre-trans fallacy, one of the most illuminating aspects of his work. I won't try to explain what the 'ptf' is—I suggest you read the book, and others by Wilber, for yourself.
I would like to have had the benefit of this developmental map much earlier in my life. It might have saved me many dead ends, wasted time and, especially, much self-sabotage that involved squashing some aspects of myself that didn't conform to the erroneous and simplistic judgments of the time—still prevalent—around what's required for personal and spiritual development. But it's precisely because of those missteps and confusions that I appreciate Wilber's work to the extent I do, and why I see it as far from being, as some complain, "too intellectual" (!), extremely *practical* for anyone wanting to wade into the daunting territory of psychological and spiritual development. Why go without a map when someone like Wilber has gone to such lengths to create one?
And yes, Wilber *is* unequivocally intellectual, but not beyond the capacity of most averagely intelligent and well motivated readers, even if, like me, you haven't read a fraction of the people he cites across different fields and wish you had! More pertinently, the notion that wielding a sharp intellect is somehow deeply inappropriate ("too intellectual!") for work that has something to do with spirituality is emblematic of the very kind of confused, stunted perspective that has so hamstrung a mature and authentic understanding of the spiritual endeavour and which Wilber is at pains to rectify via his comprehensive and nuanced paradigm. As he points out, "the very search for a new and comprehensive paradigm was generated in large measure by the knowledge claims of transcendental mysticism, predominantly Eastern in form."
If we're interested in psycho-social and spiritual development, we need to know what that development actually *is* and *is not*. This is not always clear, and has been widely misunderstood, including even by leading Western theorists, as Wilber details in his discussion on the kinds of category errors that are often made in relation to the "eyes" of flesh, soul and contemplation, and particularly in relation to the pre-trans fallacy, one of the most illuminating aspects of his work. I won't try to explain what the 'ptf' is—I suggest you read the book, and others by Wilber, for yourself.
June 22, 2010
This is about philosophy of science and spirituality, and the quest for a new paradigm to reconcile them. It touches on several common errors and fallacies in this quest, most of which the author admits he's committed in the past. One is the confusion between the eye of flesh, eye of reason, and eye of contemplation, and that using one of these eyes for the wrong thing constitutes a "category error." Another is the pre/trans fallacy, which both science and religion commit in opposite ways, in confusing the lowest and highest levels of development with each other.
The author talks of objective reality, as distinct from subjective and intersubjective. The "eye of flesh" implies objectivity, but this eye is worthless without a brain to find meaning from these images--in other words, the eye of reason, the realm of intersubjectivity. His models are mostly developmental, identifying stages of development, implying, of course, that the higher stages are better than the lower stages. All of this leaves out values--in particular, the values of the author himself, which have gone into shaping these models. He obviously values spirituality over science, for example, because he lists it as a higher stage of development, but people with different values would likely create different models. In other words, it's subjective or intersubjective.
He's a big fan of Freud, whose theories have already been debunked at great length. He still finds value in them, and explains ways that Freud has been misunderstood, or was, in fact, wrong. I was completely unpersuaded, and found his obsession with Freud annoying.
I also didn't like the writing. The author loves his acronyms, and he never misses a chance to make up new words, making his writing very hard and slow to read, and makes everything he says sound more sophisticated than it really is. However, there were several times the author articulates something very well, and I'm frustrated that he can't write like that all the time.
The author talks of objective reality, as distinct from subjective and intersubjective. The "eye of flesh" implies objectivity, but this eye is worthless without a brain to find meaning from these images--in other words, the eye of reason, the realm of intersubjectivity. His models are mostly developmental, identifying stages of development, implying, of course, that the higher stages are better than the lower stages. All of this leaves out values--in particular, the values of the author himself, which have gone into shaping these models. He obviously values spirituality over science, for example, because he lists it as a higher stage of development, but people with different values would likely create different models. In other words, it's subjective or intersubjective.
He's a big fan of Freud, whose theories have already been debunked at great length. He still finds value in them, and explains ways that Freud has been misunderstood, or was, in fact, wrong. I was completely unpersuaded, and found his obsession with Freud annoying.
I also didn't like the writing. The author loves his acronyms, and he never misses a chance to make up new words, making his writing very hard and slow to read, and makes everything he says sound more sophisticated than it really is. However, there were several times the author articulates something very well, and I'm frustrated that he can't write like that all the time.
August 7, 2010
Ken Wilber is an incredible intellectual and author. He is a great source for those of us who enjoy exploring the crossroads between philosophy, science, and spirituality.
April 14, 2013
A fabulous book for anyone interested in reconciling the inner and the outer worlds. Make sure you get the third edition or later, the preface to the third edition is important.
April 10, 2019
Cheap mysticism. It would have been so much interesting back in 1880. In the meantime many other gurus have popped up with their message and Wilber simply regurgitates some from those other guys.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews