Abstract

This paper is about comparison and appraisal of Ken Wilber’s theory of the “three components or strands of knowledge” set forth especially in his Eye to Eye and Mark Edwards’s “Integral Cycle of Knowledge” which attempts through its critique to integrate Wilber’s developmental and epistemological models. Realizing the problem of today’s scientism, Wilber introduces the concepts of the “three eyes”—the eye of flesh, of reason, and of contemplation—thusconceiving science in a broad sense. Then in order to secure verification of the knowledge he proposes the three basic components of knowledge acquisition: 1. instrumental injunction 2 Intuitive apprehension 3. Communal confirmation. In his essay, “The Integral Cycle of Knowledge,” Mark Edwards then points out themissing of an interpretive component and then he proceeds to form his own Integral Cycle of Knowledge by adding the component. Hen then integrates it into Wilber’s 4-quadrants framework as follows: UR: Injunctive strand → UL: Apprehensive strand → LL: Interpretive strand → LR: Validative strand. Their attempts to provide a solid epistemological basis to their Integral Theory are really laudable. However, they do not seem to have sufficiently reflected the intense debates surrounding especially justification or validation. According to them in spite of development in securing epistemological justification no complete answer has been found out. Moreover, the type of communal validation is scarcely seen at least among the viable alternatives the philosophers are seeking. Thus somethinginternal or externally related to truth that would eliminate or minimize the possibility of falsehood needs to be added to the validative component. If a balance is recovered among spirituality, science, and philosophy in this way, it would be of a great benefit to respective discipline.