TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
As an economics’ student in Dublin in the late 1960’s, Peter Collins underwent a significant “scientific conversion”. Since then he has devoted considerable attention to the implications of a full spectrum developmental approach for radical new interpretations of mathematics and its related sciences. Though potentially of growing relevance for better understanding of our present problems, so far, he believes, these have been greatly overlooked by both the scientific and integral communities.
Perhaps it is now time for the many talented contributors on Integral World and elsewhere to come out from the shadow of Ken Wilber — who, while admittedly making an enormous contribution, exercises an undue influence in the field — and seek to create new dynamic theories that place much greater emphasis on integral consistency.
Why "Integral Theory" is not in Fact Integral
Sometimes commonplace sensations can be very instructive.
For example, I often have experienced a counterintuitive sensation of movement when getting my car washed. As the brushes approach closer, it felt as if the car itself was moving, prompting me to instinctively apply the brakes.
The same experience has occurred when waiting for a train to depart at a railway station, with the passing of a train in the opposite direction prompting the same counterintuitive feeling of movement.
Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this sensation occurred a few years ago when boarding a car ferry to take the short journey over Lough Foyle into Northern Ireland. For the entire journey it felt as if my destination on the other side was changing position.
These examples of relative motion are in fact deeply relevant to the manner in which development takes place.
Typically we attempt to view movement in a linear asymmetrical fashion where dualistic distinctions appear valid. Human development is here portrayed as moving sequentially from lower to higher stages in a somewhat hierarchical manner. However, there is equally a circular paradoxical manner of viewing stages which seems counterintuitive in terms of accepted notions. Here, lower and higher stages are understood in dynamic relative fashion as complementary, where movement in one direction always coincides with a corresponding movement in the opposite direction.
This distinction is vitally important in terms of the clarification of the processes of both differentiation and integration respectively. Whereas differentiation, in any development context, entails the absolute notion of linear movement, with opposite poles considered as separate, integration by contrast entails the second relative notion of paradoxical motion, where the poles are now viewed in complementary fashion.
The field of integral studies, as presently understood, is greatly hampered by a marked failure to properly distinguish in a coherent intellectual manner the vital process of integration from that of differentiation.
And this indeed is very true of the work of Ken Wilber. His Integral Theory developed through the various phases of his work (Wilber 1-Wilber 5) is encapsulated in the AQAL approach, all levels, all quadrants, all lines, all states and all types. This has been further extended to consideration of 8 primordial perspectives through his Integral Methodological Pluralism.
However his multi-varied treatment of all these aspects of development — impressive though it undoubtedly is — does not properly constitute an integral approach. Thus Wilber repeatedly confuses the two notions identifying more integration with ever further differentiation of experience.
So, for example, in his novel work on perspectives he distinguishes eight key types with which he attempts to associate the major forms of intellectual inquiry. He then refers to the “sum total of various perspectives as an integral calculus of indigenous perspectives”. (Calculus in this context simply refers to a mental overview that includes all perspectives). However this clearly offers but a reduced notion of integration, where it is directly identified with multi-differentiation. In fact the important task of coherently integrating his perspectives has not yet been addressed by Wilber.
A key assumption of Wilber, which underlines all his work, is belief in the holarchical nature of development i.e. that each whole is part of a higher whole. In this article, I will concentrate on the four quadrants to illustrate how the dynamic appreciation of their nature radically changes the interpretation of holarchy. Though it still can be shown in developmental contexts to have an important — though limited — validity, it is quite unsuited as a true integral principle. For Wilber, the Kosmos is composed of holons, which universally display four facets or dimensions of being. Thus every holon has both interior and exterior aspects and also individual and collective aspects. Though he stresses that these dimensions tetra-enact simultaneously, in terms of his intellectual analysis, he typically approaches each quadrant in an absolute dualistic type manner, frequently identifying holons exclusively with just one quadrant.
So a fundamental problem has always existed, in that he has been unable to satisfactorily relate the integral aspect of quadrants (viewed as interdependent) with the differentiated appreciation of distinct quadrants (viewed as independent).
Thus Wilber keeps swinging between two extremes. On the one hand he frequently affirms, in a beautiful poetical manner, the ultimate nondual nature of reality. However, in terms of his intellectual analysis, he then switches to the opposite extreme, by making arbitrary dualistic distinctions in a reduced compartmentalised fashion.
Then by following the logical implications imposed by such distinctions, he is led to conclusions which are incompatible with any coherent integral perspective.
For example, by viewing individual and collective holons in a fragmented non-interactive manner, Wilber is led to a nonsensical distinction as between “sentient” and “insentient” holons, with the Kosmos defined as being composed of “sentient” holons.  Where William Blake was enabled “To see a World in a Grain of Sand”, Wilber now finds in the same grain a heap, which being an “insentient” holon is thereby excluded as a legitimate “building block” of his Kosmos.
Thus the basic problem with Wilber's view of holarchy is that it attempts to define the individual holon as possessing a valid meaning independent of its collective relationship with other holons and then in turn the collective holon a valid meaning independent of its relationship with each individual holon.
So for example, Wilber in his tenet 5 states “Each holon transcends and includes its predecessor”. So the holon is here defined with respect to an unambiguous identity (that can be individual or collective).
Thus Wilber immediately breaks the crucial dynamic balance as between individual and collective aspects. And this is what later leads to the dualistic distinction as between “sentient” and “insentient” holons.
However, from a dynamic interactive perspective, the individual and collective aspects of holons are strictly of a merely relative nature. Likewise “sentience” and “insentience” are relative properties applying to all holons.
Therefore, the real problem as I would see it with Wilber's work does not relate to any specific point, but rather to an intellectual method, which quite simply is not suitable for integral synthesis. So again rather than recognising in a dynamic interactive manner, the arbitrary nature of all dualistic categories, Wilber adopts a detailed mechanical approach that is based in effect on the making of absolute distinctions within limited reference frames, which subsequently are never coherently integrated with each other.
Atom and Molecule
I will now concentrate on two examples used by Wilber to illustrate the principle of holarchy.
He states that the atom is transcended and included in the molecule. Furthermore, he emphasises the asymmetrical nature of the relationship in an absolute manner by then emphatically stating that the molecule is not contained in the atom.
However when one looks at this example more carefully, it is not at all as obvious as Wilber would have us believe.
Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most important atoms. Hydrogen is the simplest atom with just one proton and one electron in its nucleus. However, three isotopes of hydrogen exist, protinum, deuterium and tritium, also referred to as Hydrogen- 1, Hydrogen- 2 and Hydrogen- 3 (containing 0, 1 and 2 neutrons respectively). Protinum (Hydrogen- 1) is by far the most common accounting for 99.98% of all hydrogen. Hydrogen is an element, which naturally exists in its molecular form H2 as a gas, where two hydrogen atoms bond with each other. In fact, two distinct types of hydrogen molecules, called isomers exist i.e. ortho hydrogen and para hydrogen, arising from differing spins of the nucleui in the molecule. At room temperature, hydrogen gas is 75% ortho and 25% para respectively.
Oxygen also naturally exists in its molecular form where again two atoms bind together i.e. O2. So if you purchased a tank of oxygen, you would be receiving oxygen in its molecular rather than atomic form.
So a question here is to consider in what sense transcendence takes place with respect to hydrogen! From the Wilberian perspective, the hydrogen molecule transcends the hydrogen atom and though constituting the same element, both are then classified as individual sentient holons. Thus a normal collection of hydrogen molecules, containing both ortho and para isomers, would be considered an insentient heap.
However, when we come on to the consideration of water, additional complications arise. A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms joined together with one oxygen atom by a covalent bond.
Indeed the true situation is more complicated in that again two types of water isomers exist, arising from distinctive spins of the hydrogen protons in the nucleus i.e. ortho water and para water respectively.
So again, Wilber would maintain that the oxygen atom and each hydrogen atom is individually transcended and included in the higher water molecule (which could be either an ortho or para isomer).
However for liquid water to exist, distinct water molecules must merge with each other through hydrogen bonding, where the slight positive electric charge on hydrogen attracts the slight negative charge on the electrons of corresponding oxygen atoms. So they still exist here as molecules but now in a conjoined state that gives rise to the all important natural properties of water.
However to complicate matters further, it is believed since the time of Linus Pauling that a covalent attraction may also be involved in this group bonding of water molecules. And recent experiments seem to confirm that this is in fact the case. Furthermore these water molecules would naturally contain a mixture of both ortho and para isomers. 
So how are we to regard the grouping of water molecules (without which the important properties of water would not exist) as opposed to the distinct molecules of water? From the Wilberian perspective, individual molecules of water are alone sentient. So water in its natural form represents a heap (as a collection of individual water molecules).
However, as we have seen, the formation of both types of molecules involves the attraction between hydrogen and oxygen atoms, with some degree of covalent bonding apparently involved in both cases.
Then water as a collection of molecules appears in different states as a solid (ice) as a liquid (water) and as a gas (vapour), which when cooled appears as steam. These states in turn reflect varying velocities in the motion of water molecules with the least energetic configuration resulting in ice.
And as we know with the present melting of the ice caps in the polar regions, the relationship as between the liquid and solid states of water is critical in determining the very future of our planet.
Water is also the most important ingredient we know for life to exist. The oceans, rivers and lakes on our planet are largely composed of water as are the clouds and rain. Most of our human body is likewise composed of water molecules.
So when Wilber maintains that the Kosmos is composed of “sentient” holons, this excludes water in the three states that we know it. And this position is clearly untenable from any coherent integral perspective. Again, it results from the attempt to use a principle regarding the individual nature of a holon, that has a certain validity within a limited partial framework, in an overall global context where it is no longer applicable.
So what one might validly consider as transcendence to a “higher” form of organisation in one context, may not apply in another. Though holarchy remains an important principle, its definition is therefore somewhat arbitrary in nature, depending on relative context.
However there are much deeper problems in epistemological terms with Wilber's notion of holarchy.
When Wilber says that the atom is included in the molecule but the molecule is not included in the atom, he is using a merely quantitative physical notion of inclusion. So he is in effect treating an event in the UR (Upper Right) quadrant in a fragmented “it” manner independent of the corresponding UL (Upper Left) quadrant.
However from the qualitative perspective, where one looks at the relationship of the atom with other atoms, it appears somewhat different.
Prior to inclusion in the molecule, an atom such as hydrogen has the capacity to be related with other atoms in a wide variety of ways. However when hydrogen, for example, is included in a water molecule, it is now restricted to one unique molecular relationship.
So inclusion in a quantitative sense, with the atom becoming a physical component of a molecule, implies exclusion in a qualitative manner, where its relationship with other atoms now becomes restricted to this particular molecule.
In terms of Wilber's quadrants, inclusion in the UR quadrant properly implies exclusion with respect to the corresponding UL quadrant.
Thus we include the quantitative nature of the atom (as a physical component of the molecule) in the UR quadrant by excluding consideration of its qualitative nature in the corresponding UL quadrant.
The deeper realisation here is that physical relationships between specific objects, (which Wilber would assign to the UR quadrant), always imply a mental interpretation (that Wilber would assign to the corresponding UL quadrant).
However by viewing the quadrants in a fragmented manner, as if a physical relationship could be understood in the absence of mental interpretation, he thereby overlooks the dynamic relationship as between UR and UL quadrants, when illustrating the nature of holarchy with respect to the atom and molecule.
Thus the corresponding qualitative aspect regarding the relationship of atom and molecule, comes from direct realisation of the intrinsic interaction as between UR and UL quadrants in heterarchical terms, where quantitative always implies qualitative and qualitative in turn implies quantitative meaning.
Therefore in dynamic interactive terms, we can only quantitatively include the atom in the molecule (with respect to the UR quadrant) by excluding the corresponding qualitative interpretation of the relationship (in the UL quadrant).
Likewise we can only include the qualitative nature of the relationship (in the UL quadrant) through corresponding exclusion of its quantitative nature (in the UR quadrant).
Therefore when Wilber maintains that the atom is (quantitatively) included in the molecule, he in effect is applying a reduced form of integration where qualitative meaning is identified with its corresponding differentiation in quantitative terms.
Thus to distinguish integration in this context from differentiation one must understand the relationship between both quadrants (UR and UL) in a relative interactive manner.
One thereby includes in quantitative terms by dynamically excluding in a qualitative manner. Likewise one dynamically includes in qualitative terms by dynamically excluding in a quantitative fashion.
The integral understanding as between UR and UL quadrants, in heterarchical terms, thereby directly relates to the paradoxical appreciation of these complementary opposite poles.
So the differentiated interpretation of the relationship as between atom and molecule, whereby one attempts to separate both quantitative and qualitative aspects, involves linear asymmetrical appreciation (where relationships are understood in a relatively independent manner).
However the corresponding integral interpretation of the relationship, whereby one attempts to combine both quantitative and qualitative aspects, involves circular appreciation (where relationships are now understood as interdependent).
So again in heterarchical terms we have both UR (quantitative) and UL (qualitative) interpretations of the relationship between atom and molecule, where one initially attempts to dualistically differentiate experience.
However, we then have combined UR and UL interpretations, through the mutual complementary recognition of inclusion and exclusion with respect to both quadrants, where one now attempts to integrate quantitative and qualitative aspects in a nondual fashion.
So through appropriate understanding, in a dynamic interactive manner, we are enabled to properly distinguish the process of integration from that of differentiation.
However there is also a vitally important vertical dimension to this relationship as between atom and molecule, which now involves both UR (Upper Right) and LR (Lower Right) quadrants.
As we have seen Wilber defines the hol-on as a whole-part (with hol- meaning whole and -on part, respectively).
Then holarchy arises when a lower whole becomes part of a higher whole.
Each lower whole is thereby transcended and included as part of the higher whole.
However, the huge problem regarding this definition is that it already gives the lower holon a pre-defined whole identity, though this identity arises from the relationship of the holon as part with other parts.
Thus in dynamic interactive terms, the individual holon only has meaning with respect to its collective relationship with other holons and vice versa.
Therefore when one stresses this alternative relationship aspect of holons, we have the corresponding notion of an on-hol (as part-whole) which only becomes whole through its relationship with other parts. Now in reverse fashion, the higher holon (the molecule) as whole is made immanent and qualitatively included in each of its lower parts (as atoms).
So in vertical terms we have two principles which have equal validity in a limited dualistic context.
Holarchy (relating to whole-part) is based on the primacy of the collective whole aspect, where a whole is considered part of a higher whole, so that the lower whole is thereby transcended and included as part of this higher whole.
However, onarchy (relating to part-whole) is based on the corresponding primacy of the individual part, where a part becomes whole through relationship with other parts, so that the higher whole is thereby made immanent and included in each of these lower parts.
So there are two distinct notions of wholeness. The parts, as with the atoms of the molecule, belong to a collective whole which (quantitatively) transcends these parts; likewise the whole belongs to each individual part, through which the whole is thereby made immanent. So the molecule is thereby made (qualitatively) immanent in each of the atoms. The first notion relates directly to holarchy, while the second relates to onarchy.
Ken Wilber's work suffers from a fundamental imbalance in that throughout his career, he has placed an almost exclusive emphasis on the dualistic notion of holarchy. This has led effectively to the treatment of holons (in the context of holarchy) as the fundamental “building blocks” of his Kosmos, leading in turn to the somewhat ridiculous identification, from an integral perspective, of sentience solely with such holons.
It also accounts for an undue emphasis on the ascent in his writings and a decidedly elitist approach to the evaluation of stages.  It also has led to a corresponding misunderstanding of the nature of the descent (which he views in an unbalanced top-down manner).
This in turn is equated with a reluctance to appreciate the essential role of regression with respect to healthy development through the need to continually revisit earlier stages. So integration should take place in both a top-down (where “lower” are integrated with respect to “higher” stages) and bottom up fashion (where “higher” are integrated with respect to “lower” stages) until ultimately, with both directions fully understood in true complementary terms, integration can thereby occur in a nondual manner, arising directly as the present moment.
Perhaps, most importantly it has led to a somewhat distorted interpretation of what he terms the pre/trans fallacy, which is strongly based on merely linear asymmetrical notions (suited to the differentiation of pre from trans). However he offers no satisfactory integral appreciation based on the inherent dynamic complementarity of both notions. And then because of this integral lack, he likewise offers no radial explanation of how differentiated and integrated notions can in turn be coherently related with each other.
We have now distinguished differentiation and integration of quadrants in both horizontal and vertical terms.
So we have shown with respect to the example of the atom and molecule, how separate differentiated interpretations are associated with both the UR and UL quadrants horizontally and the UR and LR quadrants in a vertical manner.
We then showed how dynamic integral interpretations are likewise associated in both horizontal and vertical terms through paradoxical recognition of the complementarity of polar opposites i.e. through inclusion and exclusion (horizontally) and holarchy and onarchy (vertically). And it is this recognition of complementarity, in any dynamic context, that is the direct source of intuition, which can thereby facilitate a more creative expression of understanding.
Then finally to connect the UR quadrant with the remaining LL quadrant, we require both diagonal differentiation and integration respectively in terms of both quadrants.
This entails the most refined form of interpretation and can be best understood as the simultaneous appreciation of what has already been explained separately in horizontal and vertical terms with respect to both differentiation and integration. In this way one recognises that the relationship between atom and molecule in the UR quadrant, that is initially understood in individual quantitative terms, has a corresponding collective interpretation in qualitative fashion in the LL quadrant (and vice versa), with then appreciation of the dynamic circular complementarity of both UR and LL quadrants representing diagonal integration.
When we look at Ken Wilber's model of the four quadrants, we find that it is totally unsuited to portrayal of these dynamic interactions as between opposite quadrants (horizontal vertical and diagonal).
In effect each quadrant is treated in a compartmentalised fashion with holarchies portrayed as unfolding in an unambiguous ascending direction without consideration of their necessary interaction with the other quadrants. So, for example when we look at his Upper Right quadrant, it portrays a continuous holarchic ascent from atoms to molecules to prokaryotes to eukaryotes and so on, as if these developments can be considered absolutely independent of the other quadrants. Though there is admittedly a limited validity to the differentiation of the quadrants in this manner, it is completely inadequate, as I have sought to demonstrate, for proper integral appreciation. So once again from the appropriate integral perspective, a lower stage is never included in a higher stage (in a reduced holarchic manner), but rather both stages are interrelated with each other, as truly complementary, in nondual terms.
Conop and Formop
We can gain much additional insight into these respective processes of differentiation and integration by now taking another example, which Wilber would associate with the UL quadrant.
Here we will consider two important stages of mental development in the relationship of conop (concrete operational) and formop (formal operational) understanding respectively. 
So Wilber maintains in line with his holarchical approach that conop is transcended and included in formop. And this is now intended to take place in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner.
But one might validly ask what exactly is included in formop through such transcendence! Conop itself represents a form of rational understanding, where a child learns to apply reason to specific objects in a concrete manner. Formop then represents the further specialisation of reason, where it can be increasingly used in a general abstract fashion (without consideration of concrete objects).
Therefore, though one might agree that a rational form of understanding is included in formop, equally one must recognise the need to exclude the concrete objects with which it was previously associated. And the growing ability to gradually separate exterior and interior aspects of understanding in this manner is a prerequisite for the successful transition from conop to formop to occur.
So once again inclusion with respect to one quadrant (now in a qualitative manner) dynamically implies exclusion with respect to the opposite horizontal quadrant (understood relatively in quantitative terms).
Therefore, one can only include the rational nature of conop (relating to the UL quadrant) by excluding the concrete objects associated with conop (in the corresponding UR quadrant).
Equally, in reverse fashion, one can only include the objects of conop (in the UR quadrant) by dynamically excluding abstract reason (in the UL quadrant).
So once again we can identify distinct types of differentiation in this case with respect to both UR and UL quadrants, with horizontal integration relating to the appreciation of the dynamic paradoxical complementarity of both quadrants (where inclusion implies exclusion, and exclusion implies inclusion, respectively).
We now consider the very important vertical links as between conop and formop.
Again Wilber would maintain that the lower conop stage is transcended and included in holarchical fashion in formop. However this is a very one-sided interpretation, implying that integration then takes place in a reduced top-down manner, where the higher formop understanding is now applied to conop.
Admittedly, this does indeed represent one important direction of scientific understanding in what is known as deduction, where general hypotheses and theories, developed at the formop stage, can then be applied to obtain new findings with respect to the empirical world. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is an excellent example of such an approach. So in 1915, he used his new theory of gravity to accurately calculate a deviation in Mercury's orbit, which previously could not be explained by science.
However as stated in the previous example, there is an equally important onarchical principle which is overlooked by Wilber.
Thus with respect to this example, the higher stage i.e. formop, is made immanent and included in each of the parts of conop. In other words the collective nature of formop is now made immanent in concrete facts.
So, rather than a top-down, one can offer a bottom-up explanation of the relationship between conop and formop.
This means that following the unfolding of formop, one again returns to the conop stage e.g. through examining research data, which can now more readily suggest generalised connections at the formop stage.
And this opposite approach of induction is equally important in science. Once again, Einstein in his work provides an excellent example. Thus in his annus mirabilis of 1905, when studying the photoelectric effect, his experiments confirmed that light could displace electrons from atoms. This therefore provided evidence for a particle theory of light, which ran counter to the wave explanation of the time. So here we had empirical research leading to the questioning of a long accepted theory.
The great irony with respect to Wilber's work is that even though he continually asserts the principle of holarchy, operating in a top-down manner in terms of development, his actual derivation of the four quadrants properly represents the opposite onarchical principle at work.
Thus in preparation for the writing of SES, Wilber collected a vast amount of empirical data relating to various hierarchies. And from detailed consideration of this data, he was enabled to extract the common dimensions that he then termed the four quadrants. So the four quadrants, now used as an abstract general principle applicable to all development, was initially derived through induction in a bottom-up manner from the lower conop stage. Again, this properly represents the principle of onarchy rather than holarchy.
However, as I have already stated, the attempt to explain vertical integration in either a top-down or bottom-up manner is itself one-sided (where integration is reduced to differentiation). True integration, from a vertical perspective, entails the explicit paradoxical appreciation of the dynamic complementarity of both holarchical and onarchical aspects. So from a differentiated perspective, holarchy dualistically excludes onarchy and onarchy in turn dualistically excludes holarchy. However in nondual integral terms, holarchy and onarchy are viewed as complementary opposites that simultaneously imply each other.
This circular appreciation then greatly enhances intuitive awareness, which in turn, as for example in science, can prove immensely creative, both in the generation of new hypotheses and interpretation of existing data.
Finally we can have diagonal differentiation with respect to the UL and the LR quadrants. Though conop does indeed initially unfold in specific concrete situations, it can later become extended, through enhanced interaction with formop, to the appreciation of more abstract data.
For example, economists in understanding the health of the economy will often use a variety of indicators such as unemployment levels, inflation, trade figures, levels of investment etc. These all entail data of a generalised nature.
This is also true of formop, which can be used in an increasingly generalised manner. Though it might be initially understood as applying to individual development, such development cannot be divorced from a wider cultural context. So the diagonal connection as between formop and conop entails the relationship of abstract mental concepts and generalised empirical data, which again can be related in two-way fashion with each other. When each direction is dualistically separated, we have differentiated appreciation; when they are mutually related in circular fashion, as complementary opposites, we then have integral understanding.
However, even when the complementarity of opposite poles is explicitly recognised, integration may still to a degree take place in an unbalanced manner.
Thus in heterarchical terms, an extrovert will typically attempt to integrate with respect to the exterior aspect, while an introvert by contrast will place more emphasis on the interior aspect. Then in hierarchical terms, men typically attempt to rationally integrate in a top-down manner from a higher level, whereas women by contrast tend to emotionally integrate in a bottom-up fashion with respect to the complementary lower level, though there are many exceptions to such behaviour in terms of both sexes.
There are a number of other important points that arise that can best be addressed through consideration of the next rational stage after formop, which Ken Wilber customarily refers to as vision-logic.
However a great deal of confusion surrounds the nature of vision-logic, which is used in at least five ways which bear no clear relationship with each other.
1) Commons and Richards refer to four stages that they consider post-formal i.e. systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic and cross-paradigmatic.
However the question arises as to whether these properly represent new stages, which in Wilber's term transcend the previous formop stage, or rather further sub-stages of understanding relating to increasing specialisation of formop.
So firstly one can abstract relationships between concrete objects as formop, then a more general abstraction with respect to a set of relationships (systematic), then a further abstraction with respect to a set of systems, (meta-systematic), then yet another abstraction with respect to a grouping of meta-systems (paradigmatic) and finally an abstraction with respect to a group of paradigms (cross-paradigmatic). One is thereby enabled to apply thinking to the nature of thinking in an increasingly universal manner. And in principle, there is no reason to stop here, as one could then perhaps abstract further with respect to a grouping of cross-paradigms and so on indefinitely!
This represents the first meaning of vision-logic, as increasing specialisation with respect to the use of formop. However because this entails development of ever more abstract forms of reason, it would not in itself lead to the generation of intuition (which is implicitly based on the integral appreciation of complementary opposites). So it could well represent a formal use of logic that greatly lacks a visionary dimension. Therefore to define such an abstract specialised use of reason in this sense as vision-logic would represent a significant misnomer. 
2) Then in referring principally to the work of Jean Gebser, Wilber speaks of vision-logic as an integral aperspectival approach, whereby one is enabled to view reality from a number of distinct perspectives, without giving precedence to any single perspective. However as his more recent work on indigenous perspectives implies, this entails perspectives of a 1st person and 2nd person nature, which are not strictly rational in nature. Therefore we cannot identify this meaning of vision-logic, entailing a composite mix of structures (affective and cognitive) directly with that relating to post-formal rational stages.
Anyway, it is somewhat naïve to consider that any one can view reality in a totally balanced manner, without giving precedence to some perspectives over others.
For example the very basis of a personality type, as in the Myers-Briggs typology, is that the four basic functions, sense, intuition, reason and feeling are employed in a characteristic manner, where functions are not equally developed.
So there is a dominant function, which one chiefly employs to understand reality, which is backed up with a second auxiliary function. Then there is a less used tertiary function and finally a least developed inferior, which is the opposite of the dominant function. Therefore for example where the interior thinking function is dominant, which would be typical for a great systems builder such as Ken Wilber, then the inferior function is exterior feeling.
Thus it is perhaps not surprising in his work on perspectives, that Wilber lays special emphasis on intellectual methodologies (based primarily on the thinking function). Then at the other extreme, he reduces the 2nd person “you” perspective (which is related directly to exterior feeling) in 1st person plural “we” terms. So even in a treatment, supposedly designed to honour all perspectives equally, an obvious bias is in evidence, based on personality type. And this does not represent a criticism of Ken Wilber as such, in that it applies to everyone, because we all view reality through distinctive personality profiles, with some perspectives more emphasised than others. Then particular life circumstances, such as cultural background, crisis events and one's employment can further lead to certain limited perspectives being given a special prominence.
3) A third meaning of vision-logic relates to that actually used by Wilber extensively in his writings. This does not necessarily include all the post-formal stages defined by Commons and Richards — though it does not exclude such use — but rather relates to the creative integration in an enhanced fashion of both formop and conop.
So Wilber's genius is in his imaginative application of linear asymmetrical reason in an unparalleled manner to an enormous range of data creating an impressive network that covers a wide range of intellectual disciplines.
And his use of logic in this context is indeed imbued with a significant level of “visionary” intuition, enabling him to make many exciting new linkages both within and between various fields of knowledge.
However this begs the question as to the precise manner in which this use of vision-logic properly represents a new stage. Whereas previous stage transitions, as for example from conop to formop, can be identified in terms of increasingly differentiated rational abilities, vision-logic, in the sense that it is actually used by Wilber, implicitly represents increasing integral capacity with respect to two stages that have already unfolded in development. 
In this sense therefore the notion of holarchical transcendence in the manner defined by Wilber would only strictly apply to this use of vision-logic (a) where it incorporates at least one of the post-formal stages identified by Commons and Richards and (b) where this is recognised as a distinctive new stage (rather than a higher sub-stage within a given stage).
However even if these two conditions were fulfilled, a further refinement not addressed by Commons and Richards would also be required in the recognition that equal distinctions should be made in terms of the earlier conop stage. So for example “lower” conop data can likewise be used inductively in a systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic and cross-paradigmatic fashion.
However it does not require mastery of such advanced post-concrete stages, before progressing to formop. Therefore, just as these would be looked on as potential refinements relating to the advanced use of conop, likewise I would see the post-formal stages as also representing potential refinements relating to the advanced use of formop. So, the process of unambiguously classifying the basic stages always remains somewhat problematic.
Therefore, Ken Wilber's predominant use of such vision-logic implicitly represents the integral two-way linking of both the conop and formop stages in a heterarchical (horizontal) and hierachical (vertical) manner. However explicitly, because of an overemphasis on holarchical differentiation, he does not explain the true nature of such vision-logic in an appropriate manner.
4) There is then further confusion caused by the fact that Wilber often refers to vision-logic in a fourth sense as also relating to dialectical reason.
However dialectical — also referred to as paradoxical, mandalic, circular or non-linear — reason, in the manner employed by Hegel for example, refers to a very different form of understanding than what Wilber typically employs in his writings.
The absolute type claims made by Wilber that the Kosmos is composed of holons and then later that the Kosmos is composed of perspectives represents a decidedly non-dialectical manner of viewing reality.
From a Hegelian perspective, one would propose the thesis “the Kosmos is composed of holons” and then its antithesis “the Kosmos is not composed of holons”. Then the synthesis of these two positions would imply the paradoxical notion that the Kosmos is both composed and not composed of holons. This directly implies that one cannot hope to give holons any absolute independent existence, but rather must consider them in a dynamic interactive manner as related to other holons. So holons are given a relatively independent identity in quantitative terms and a relatively interdependent identity in a qualitative manner respectively. Thus to properly restate Wilber's contention regarding holons, in a more acceptable dynamic manner, one would need to explicitly state from the onset “the Kosmos is composed of holons and the relationship between holons”. And indeed if Wilber had sought to approach the issue in this manner, he might have avoided many of the glaring inconsistencies that subsequently have arisen with respect to his “Integral Theory”. Thus dialectical reason can only be successfully understood in a dynamic interactive context, where all dualistic distinctions are given a partial relative validity. These distinctions are then rendered paradoxical when the frame of reference is changed. And it is in the growing appreciation of the complementary nature of all such dualistic distinctions that true integral understanding emerges. 
However this form of reasoning is significantly absent from Wilber's intellectual work.
Certainly, he often gives poetic type descriptions of the nature of nondual reality that emphasises its paradoxical nature (from a dualistic perspective).
However, in his actual treatment of developmental issues, there is a marked lack of this dialectical reasoning in evidence. So, for example, his interpretation of the four quadrants is carried out in a very fragmented manner, within isolated reference frames that are never coherently related to each other. In fact, his characteristic style of thinking is in the making of precise absolute type distinctions within limited partial contexts. Now, this has indeed proved immensely valuable in terms of providing a detailed understanding of various aspects of development (considered in relative isolation). However it is totally unsuited to true integral appreciation, where a distinctive type of holistic consistency, as between partial findings, is required.
Dialectical reasoning, or what I refer to as multi-directional understanding, only properly unfolds at the more advanced levels of contemplative development — referred to by Wilber as psychic/subtle, causal and nondual — where ever purer contemplative states of an intuitive nature, ceaselessly interact with increasingly refined phenomenal structures. So this growth in spiritual intuitive awareness enables one to see more clearly the paradoxical nature of all dualistic distinctions. In turn, keen appreciation of this dualistic paradox leads to the ever purer experience of nondual emptiness.
However because Wilber typically associates these levels exclusively with spiritual states, he fails to recognise that they are equally associated with new refined cognitive structures of increasing complexity. These are then vital for the task of making the integral aspect of development properly explicit in an intellectual manner.
In fact, distinctive types of multi-directional understanding of an integral kind, with 2, 4 and 8 directions respectively, are associated with the three main advanced levels identified (psychic/subtle, causal and nondual).
A key feature of my own work, which I have been actively pursuing over the past fifty years, is the holistic mathematical task of providing a truly integral scientific account of the nature of these advanced structures. And one key feature of this understanding, then given a precise holistic mathematical interpretation, is growing appreciation of the manner in which distinctive kinds of complementarity — which I have never seen properly addressed in any literature — unfold at the three advanced spiritual levels.
Exterior and interior aspects are dynamically related in bi-directional “real” fashion, with the explicit intellectual understanding of this horizontal complementarity gradually unfolding at the psychic/subtle stages.
Then corresponding explicit appreciation of the bi-directional nature of higher and lower vertical stages requires a significant further refinement in unconscious awareness, in holistic mathematical appreciation of the “imaginary” notion, which unfolds at the causal level.
Then finally, diagonal integration involves the increasing ability to simultaneously appreciate complementary linkages both within each stage (horizontally) and between all stages (vertically). Only then, in approaching the marriage of form and emptiness corresponding to nondual reality, can one finally appreciate the purely relative nature of all dualistic phenomena in space and time, which radiate from an ever-present spiritual centre.
I must emphasise once again that there is a marked lack of such non-linear reason in Wilber's work. However, this is consistently overlooked due to the fact that he indeed frequently makes poetic type statements regarding the nature of nondual reality that do indeed appear non-linear. Also presumed connections between his own work and spiral dynamics perhaps fosters the misleading impression that his approach is thereby dynamic, rather than mechanical. However his actual treatment of key developmental issues is greatly lacking in non-linear reason, which properly requires a truly interactive manner of viewing reality. 
5) Vision-logic is then used in yet a 5th much vaguer sense as being synonymous with the centaur stage, where allegedly the full integration of mind and body can take place.
I do accept that for a certain personality type, which is very much rooted in the conscious world of actual phenomena, quasi-integration of the personality can indeed occur at the centaur stage.
Thus given sufficiently favourable circumstances with respect to development, integration then implicitly takes place providing a coherent framework for activities and relationships to occur. Though internal conflicts, especially in later life may arise, they do not seriously undermine a ready adaptation to the world of form. However for the more intuitive type of personality, it is highly unlikely that proper integration could occur at this stage. This type can experience a considerable amount of psychological conflict especially in early adulthood. So integration here requires a much greater development of the unconscious, with perhaps continued exposure to more advanced spiritual levels.
Finally there is a further personality type, which might be called mystical, where one's centre of gravity resides neither with conscious nor unconscious as such, but rather with the relationship between both as one's true centre.
So for full integration here, the most radical intensive kind of spiritual development may be required, culminating with the radial stages.
Even with respect to the appropriate personality type, only a qualified form of integration of mind and body, dictated by social norms, is therefore possible at the centaur stage. And even in terms of such integration, no satisfactory explanation is given in the literature as to how this might take place.
Arising from his emphasis on transcendence and inclusion at each stage of development, Wilber maintains that a considerable amount of mind-body integration already takes place by the formop stage, with the centaur then representing but the final stage in this integration process.
However as I have already indicated, properly understood in dynamic interactive terms, inclusion at each stage necessarily also implies exclusion.
So the very process, by which the rational mind eventually can achieve specialised development at the formop stage is precisely because physical aspects, reflecting confused understanding of an unconscious nature, are continually excluded at each previous stage, thereby allowing such conscious understanding to become fully differentiated in a rational manner (from the unconscious).
This implies therefore that the specialisation of reason, even when considered healthy, is inevitably associated with considerable dissociation from the body and primitive instinctive behaviour. Therefore there is no realistic way in which reason can then be used to properly integrate such disassociated physical elements.
Of course emotional development also takes place through various stages. However because of the dominance in Western society of the scientific world view, this development is normally associated with a considerable amount of repression.
Thus the form of quasi-integration that can take place at the centaur, strictly has little to do with holarchy and inclusion (as defined by Wilber). Rather such implicit integration involves the volitional capacity of will or what Wilber might refer to as the self system, in an inherent search for meaning that seeks to properly reconcile reason with emotion. So in a primary sense, the desire for integration does not directly relate to either reason or emotion as such, but rather to the will, which is truly central.
And for one clearly rooted in the world of form, such integration might be sufficient to lead a productive and creative life. Then the unconscious as the direct source of integration can play a largely hidden role in providing holistic coherence to established conscious activity.
However, where a person is especially sensitive to promptings from the unconscious, full mind-body integration is highly unlikely to be achieved at the centaur stage. Indeed it should be obvious that if such integration could indeed take place at the centaur, then there would be no need for further transpersonal development! So, once again it makes little sense to refer to what effectively represents a necessarily limited attempt to achieve full integration of the major modes of development at the centaur, in terms of just the cognitive rational mode. 
Thus to conclude, vision-logic is used in so many different ways i.e. specialised development of formop, implicit integration of various modes following formop, infusion of cognitive function with transpersonal type intuition, multiperspectival view of reality etc. and in the case of Ken Wilber, simply as a label for his overall approach (which involves an idiosyncratic mix of these and other elements), that it is rendered somewhat meaningless as a precise stage of development.
A New Model of Development
When one properly recognises the distinctive nature of differentiation and integration, relating to two unique logical systems, then this entails that both must be explicitly incorporated in any coherent account of development.
And this is what I have been attempting to achieve now for several decades with my holistic binary approach. 
Just as in analytic terms, all information processes can be potentially encoded through the use of the two digits 1 and 0, likewise, all transformation processes (such as human and natural development) can be likewise encoded through the use of the same two digits 1 and 0, now understood in a distinctive holistic manner.
So 1 relates to linear logic based on asymmetrical type understanding that is properly suited to the differentiated aspect of development.
By contrast 0 relates to circular logic based on complementary type appreciation that is suited to the corresponding integral aspect.
So differentiation in the most fundamental sense is associated with dualistic understanding. Integration by contrast relates directly to what is nondual, which then indirectly can be intellectually conveyed through circular i.e. paradoxical type reason.
When one clearly distinguishes differentiation from integration, this leads to the requirement to provide three distinct treatments of development.
1. The differential aspect of development, using linear asymmetrical understanding (1). In my own model this incorporates the first two of eight major bands of development (i.e. lower and middle).
2. The integral aspect using circular complementary understanding (0). This incorporates the next three spiritual contemplative bands (i.e. the ascent, nondual and the descent).
3. The radial aspect using the combined interpenetration of both linear (1) and circular aspects (0). This incorporates the final three major radial bands (early radial, middle radial and late radial respectively) where both activity and contemplation can be harmoniously combined with each other in an increasingly dynamic interactive manner.
Though Ken Wilber certainly approaches development with an integral vision, it is largely limited to appreciation of the various states associated with the three contemplative stages. He does not apparently clearly realise that distinctive affective, cognitive and volitional structures are likewise associated with these stages and that the cognitive structures — which cannot be confused with his use of vision-logic — are especially vital in terms of an intellectual treatment of development that can be properly consistent in integral terms. 
So, from my perspective, at best Wilber offers but a reduced Integral Theory, where once again integration is consistently identified with the multi-differentiation of experience.
And as the radial approach requires the balanced interpenetration of both differential and integral aspects that have been properly distinguished from each other, he clearly therefore does not provide a radial treatment.
In fact, even in terms of states, Wilber does not really venture into radial territory. He often gives the impression, perhaps arising from strong immersion in Eastern mystical traditions, that somehow human development is largely completed with the realisation of nondual reality (which represents the peak integral state of such development).
Though the precise clarification of contemplative states is less emphasised in the Western tradition, there is however a stronger appreciation that the final stages of development entail a return to the marketplace in a greatly enhanced form of human involvement with society.
Therefore, from this perspective the most advanced attainment is not of the nondual, but rather the ability to continually balance dual and nondual in a manner that can be both highly productive and immensely creative for society. So for example in the Christian tradition we see these final radial stages of development exemplified in the lives of various saints such as Paul, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Sienna, Ignatius of Loyola and Theresa of Avila, who by reaching into the profound contemplative depths of their experience could thereby operate with a superhuman degree of energy in actively transforming the religious world in which they lived.
However what I find remarkable is that aside from such direct religious expression, little or no recognition yet exists of the immensely exciting new scientific and artistic vistas that are properly consistent with such stages.
So once we get rid of this erroneous and limiting notion that intellectual life itself peaks with centaur understanding — which strangely Ken Wilber has done a great deal to foster — we become free to explore vast new terrains of knowledge that are properly expressive of the higher contemplative and then the later radial bands.
Over the past fifty years or so, I have devoted considerable time to developing a new form of mathematics called holistic mathematics, which is designed to be properly consistent with the integral bands of advanced spiritual development. Despite many obstacles, I believe that I have made significant progress in this regard e.g. encoding in a precise scientific manner the advanced structures of development. And more recently, I have sought to extend this mathematical appreciation into the radial bands.
I have no doubt that in time when such new forms of mathematics become more widely developed that they will have the capacity to bring about the greatest revolution yet in our intellectual history. However, so far there has been a significant failure of imagination, even within the integral community to consider that such radical developments might indeed be possible.
So we do not yet have a proper integral theory of development. Even less do we yet have a radial theory (in the sense that I define it). Rather we have but a reduced Integral Theory (where integration is not explicitly distinguished from differentiation). Perhaps it is now time for the many talented contributors on Integral World and elsewhere to come out from the shadow of Ken Wilber — who, while admittedly making an enormous contribution, exercises an undue influence in the field — and seek to create new dynamic theories that place much greater emphasis on integral consistency.
1. In the attempt to maintain the distinction as between “sentient” and “insentient” holons, Wilber likewise distinguishes as between the four quadrants relating to “sentient” holons through which we view reality through and the four quadrivia relating to “insentient” holons, which can be looked at through the four quadrants. Thus you or I, as an individual “sentient” holon can attempt to look at an artefact such as a chair as an “insentient” holon through the four quadrants (which would now be viewed as the four quadrivia of the chair). However, once again it is simply untenable to attempt to view individual holons (as Wilber does) as independent of their collective counterparts. So, all these carefully made distinctions in relation to individual and collective holons, sentient and insentient holons and then between quadrants and quadrivia make no sense whatsoever from any coherent dynamic perspective.
2. Water molecules are never found alone. In fact it was only as recently as 2011 that two Japanese researchers, Kei Kurotobi and Yasujiro Murata could make the claim that they had managed to trap a single water molecule in a hydrophobic fullerene cage (which has now been repeated by other researchers). They have used this strategy to make bulk quantities of such water, with single molecules trapped within distinct fullerene cages.
3. Once again, in differentiated terms, the basic stages unfold in a hierarchical sequential manner. So from this perspective, formop does indeed appear as a higher stage than conop. However from an integral perspective, stages are related to each other in a complementary fashion in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms. This implies in vertical terms for example, that the “lowest” stage is complementary with the “highest” and the “highest” in turn with the “lowest”. So the meaning of a stage as “higher” or “lower” is ultimately purely relative in integral terms. Wilber deals with these two notions in a linear asymmetrical manner like the ascending and descending of a ladder. However in integral terms, advancing “higher” to the more advanced spiritual stages equally implies descending “lower” to the earliest stages, where one can come to terms with the primitive unconscious confusion dating from this time. So mature spiritual development, which is truly integral, must place an equal emphasis on the ascent and descent (in both a top-down and bottom-up manner).
In fact we can point here to an important distinction as between typical male and female paths to integration. In male terms, the emphasis in earlier spiritual development tends to be primarily on the rational ascent in advancing to higher stages of development. Only later can such development be properly integrated from an emotional perspective with the descent through intensive focus on the earliest physical stages. By contrast in female terms, the earlier spiritual emphasis in such development is frequently on the emotional descent in the mature desire to uncover the instinctive desires that were repressed at the earlier stages. Then with spirituality sufficiently grounded in this immanent manner, the later focus gradually turns more to the transcendent ascent in refined rational involvement at the higher contemplative levels.
I find the elitist manner in which some members of the integral movement portray themselves as the leading edge of 2nd tier development coupled with some awful stereotypical branding of lesser mortals in 1st tier terms, to be quite inconsistent with genuine integral development.
4. Both conop and formop are Piagetian terms that are now widely accepted. Wilber frequently refers to conop as rule/role mind and formop as the formal-reflexive stage respectively.
5. Indeed Commons and Richards attempt to explain the nature of such thinking in a highly abstract manner, by using the mathematical symbols of set theory to explain their stage differences.
6. There is a certain valid sense however in which vision-logic can be said to represent a further differentiation of rational understanding. So, just as conop represents the growing ability to separate object and subject at a horizontal (heterarchical) level and formop the ability to separate whole and part at a vertical (hierarchical) level, vision logic represents in turn the ability to separate form and emptiness at a diagonal (both horizontal and vertical) level.
However it is the integration of both conop and formop that represents its chief feature. Once again, such integration remains merely implicit at the vision-logic stage, where it is still confused with differentiation. Likewise, though operating in an increasingly flexible manner that is imbued with intuition, understanding still remains predominantly at the linear asymmetrical level.
7. When I became familiar with Hegel's work in the late 60's, it exercised a profound influence on my subsequent intellectual development. However, I gradually became aware of a new form of reductionism in his writings, where the expression of the dialectic as a formal structure was largely divorced from the need for authentic contemplative type experience as an intuitive state. So Hegel in effect attempted to reduce authentic religion, as with mystical awareness, to philosophy, which I certainly would not accept. Also in line with Kierkegaard's criticism, I believe he over-emphasised global historical developments, thereby neglecting the supreme importance of individual personal experience.
8. In contrast to Wilber, Hegel (philosophy), Jung (psychology) and Underhill (mysticism) represent three influential figures, who adopted approaches that are inherently dynamic in terms of development.
So when Wilber made the misleading claim in Integral Psychology that Underhill's approach to Christian mysticism was broadly similar to his own, I wrote a lengthy article to highlight how in several key respects the two approaches are substantially different. This article also shows how the four quadrants can be used in a dynamic interactive manner to illustrate the different ways in which higher spiritual development can unfold for distinctive personality types.
9. Wilber in fact offers conflicting views on this issue. So for example in Integral Psychology, while supporting research that maintains that full body-mind integration can occur at the centaur, he also argues that the mind-body problem cannot be resolved in the absence of genuine transpersonal development, which is the view that I would adopt.
10. Associated with his work on perspectives, Wilber has developed a notation system to represent such perspectives, that he refers to as Integral Mathematics. However, though in its own way this notation is indeed ingenious, it remains very far indeed from what I would consider as integral mathematics. My own development of Holistic Mathematics which is based directly on the dynamic structures of the “higher” contemplative levels was explicitly designed to serve as an integral mathematics. However because of the established mathematical acceptance of integral (with respect to calculus) I have always used the word holistic in place of integral to avoid confusion.
The number system is central to mathematics and there are two distinct ways of deriving the number system. What I have found remarkable is that the corresponding integral appreciation of the first manner of deriving the number system (the additive approach) is directly associated with the spiritual ascent, in providing precise clarification of the unconscious basis of all integral understanding.
Then what is perhaps even more remarkable is that the second manner of deriving the number system (the multiplicative approach) is then directly associated with the spiritual descent in the corresponding clarification of the unconscious basis of all differentiated phenomena.
These discoveries have led me to realisation of the extraordinary importance of the Riemann Hypothesis — the outstanding unsolved hypothesis in mathematics — not just as a means as in conventional analytic mathematics, to achieve reconciliation of the two approaches to the number system in a quantitative manner, but equally in qualitative holistic terms as the corresponding means of reconciling both differentiation and integration with respect to all processes. I now see this as the true condition for radial development, where the dynamic marriage of contemplation (as nondual) and activity (as dual) can fully take place.
Radial mathematics then entails the ability to simultaneously interpret relationships from combined analytic and holistic perspectives, which would include 1st 2nd and 3rd person perspectives in Wilberian terms. And here mathematical symbols serve not only as the encoded basis of all scientific type understanding (in rational terms) but equally the encoded basis of all aesthetic type appreciation (in a qualitative affective manner).
So with the onset of radial reality, one can more clearly appreciate that mathematical symbols serve as the fundamental interface as between the spiritual world of emptiness and the phenomenal world of form, though which all phenomenal reality (or the Kosmos as Wilber would call it) is inherently encoded. Thus holons and perspectives, as soon as they arise, are already encoded in a mathematical manner.
11. Wilber in his AQAL includes lines of development, which I refer to as modes. Now properly understood, such modes should be given both a differentiated treatment as relatively independent lines, but also an integral treatment as interdependent with each other where their complementary circular aspects are made explicit. And once again this latter integral aspect is significantly missing from Wilber's work.
However to properly approach the integral aspect it is necessary I believe to distinguish as between primary and secondary modes. Just like the three primary colours in printing, we have three primary modes, affective, cognitive and volitional. A secondary mode e.g. interpersonal development, entails varying configurations of these primary modes.
So, in an integral account of development, it is important to show how the three primary modes are dynamically related throughout development.
Ken Wilber; Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy; Shambhala Publications, 1st Paperback Edition, New Edition 1st May, 2000
Ken Wilber; Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution; Shambhala Publications, New Edition 1st December, 2000
Ken Wilber; Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World; Shambhala Publications, US Reprint Edition, 28th December, 2007
Ken Wilber; Excerpt C: The Ways We are in This Together; kenwilber.com, 2006 (contains diagram of Four Quadrants used in article)
Philip Ball; Bonding of Water: Nature, January 1999
Steven A. Edwards; Interrogating a Fullerene-Imprisoned Water Molecule, AAAS, 2012
Michael Lamport Commons, Sara Nora Ross and Jonas Gensaku Miller; Why Postformal Stages of Development are not Formal but Postformal; Integral World, 2011
Jeff Meyerhoff; Bald Ambition, Chapter 3: Vision-logic; Integral World, 2006
Mark Edwards; Through AQAL Eyes; Part 1: A Critique of the Wilber-Hofman Model of Holonic Categories; Integral World, June 2002
George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel; The Phenomenology of Spirit; Cambridge University Press, January 24th, 2019
Peter Collins; Original Vision; personal web-site
Peter Collins; Integral Approach: A Comparison of Underhill and Wilber, 2002
Peter Collins; A Range of Vision-Logic Interpretations Note to Pre/Trans Issues 2, 2005