• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Important Limitations of Integral's “Transcend and Include”

Joseph Dillard

The Integral AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) framework, developed by Ken Wilber, includes the principle of "transcend and include," which posits that each developmental stage builds upon and integrates the capacities of earlier stages while introducing new, more complex adaptive strategies. According to this view, "higher" stages, such as late personal, vision-logic/integral-aperspectival, and transpersonal stages, are considered more adaptive because they encompass the strengths of "lower" stages, such as early, mid-, and late prepersonal, early, and mid-personal, while adding greater cognitive, emotional, and systemic complexity. This allows for broader perspectives, increased flexibility, and the ability to navigate more intricate social, cultural, and geopolitical environments. In what follows, the original names for developmental stages, early, mid, and late prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal, as well as vision-logic, are substituted for the trite, arbitrary, and cultish color designations of beige, purple, red, amber (blue), orange, green, teal (yellow), turquoise, and coral. The content of this essay has been supported and improved by input from Grok 3.

Why "Transcend and Include" May Be a Poor Fit for Certain Life Circumstances

The "transcend and include" principle assumes that higher stages are inherently more adaptive because they integrate the strengths of earlier stages while adding new capacities. For example, late personal empathy builds on mid-personal rationality, which includes early personal stability. However, this model can be a poor fit for specific life circumstances due to the following reasons:

Contextual Mismatch: Higher stages are optimized for complex, stable, or interconnected environments where nuanced perspective-taking, systemic thinking, or global awareness are advantageous. However, many real-world circumstances, especially in high-threat, resource-scarce, or culturally rigid settings, require simpler, more immediate, or localized adaptive strategies that earlier stages provide. For example, vision-logic's systemic integration is less effective in a war zone where late prepersonal survival-driven tribalism ensures group protection. The complexity of higher stages can introduce delays, over-analysis, or misalignment with the immediate demands of the environment, reducing their practical utility.

Overloading Cognitive and Emotional Resources: Higher stages demand greater cognitive and emotional capacity. For example, vision-logic is the ability to hold multiple perspectives and mid transpersonal manifests universal empathy. In high-stress or resource-constrained contexts, individuals or groups may lack the energy, time, or safety to engage these capacities. Earlier stages, with their simpler, more instinctual or rule-based approaches, are less resource-intensive and thus more sustainable. Mid- to late prepersonal quick, decisive action or early personal reliance on tradition conserves mental and emotional resources, making them more adaptive in crises or stable traditional settings. These are good reasons why “higher” developmental stages often do not win out over “lower” ones: the “lower” ones are more adaptable to more circumstances more relevant to more people.

Cultural or Systemic Incompatibility: Higher stages often assume a cultural or systemic context that supports the pluralism of late personal, the integration of vision-logic, or the global consciousness of early transpersonal. In contexts dominated by rigid hierarchies, tribal loyalties, “might makes right,” or competitive individualism, these assumptions fail. Earlier stages like traditional early personal or rational mid-personal orange align better with existing LL cultural norms or LR systemic structures, making them more effective. The inclusivity of late personal may clash with early personal cultural unity. Vision-logic's holism may be impractical in the meritocratic systems of mid-personal, leading to resistance or failure.

Risk of Maladaptive Complexity: The inclusion of earlier stages in higher ones is not always seamless. Higher stages may dilute or suppress the raw effectiveness of earlier stages' adaptations, such as the assertiveness of late prepersonal or the stability of early personal, by overcomplicating them with additional considerations. For instance, the empathy of late personal might soften the necessary ruthlessness of late prepersonal in a survival context, reducing effectiveness. Earlier stages' focused, context-specific strengths can be more adaptive than the broader, sometimes diffuse capacities of higher stages.

Elitism and Bias in the Model: The "transcend and include" principle can foster an elitist bias, where higher stages are presumed superior, marginalizing earlier stages as "less evolved." This overlooks the evolutionary fitness of earlier stages in specific niches. For example, labeling a prepersonal stage community as "primitive" ignores its adaptive advantage in high-threat environments. The model's hierarchical framing can lead to misapplication, where practitioners favor vision-logic solutions without assessing contextual fit, resulting in ineffective or culturally insensitive outcomes.

Lack of Accountability to Immediate Needs: Higher stages often prioritize long-term, systemic, or universal goals, such as early transpersonal planetary survival, which may neglect immediate LR systemic needs, such as economic stability, or LL social norms like trust, and reciprocity. Earlier stages like early or mid-personal are often more attuned to immediate, practical demands, ensuring accountability to local realities. The abstract solutions of vision-logic and above may lack the transparency or practicality required in urgent or localized contexts.

How Earlier Stages Can Be Superior Choices

Earlier stages, prepersonal, early and mid-personal, can be superior choices in specific life circumstances because they offer focused, context-specific adaptive advantages that align with the immediate demands of the environment. These stages outperform later stages (late personal, vision-logic, early transpersonal) in particular social, cultural, familial, and geopolitical contexts, using quadrant analysis to illustrate their effectiveness. Each stage is reframed as an evolutionary adaptive strategy. Let's look at the adaptive advantages of each stage. Prepersonal Stages

Prepersonal stages prioritize survival, tribal loyalty, and immediate action, excelling in high-threat, unstable environments where quick, group-based responses ensure safety and resource acquisition. In urban areas with high crime or poverty, such as parts of Chicago or São Paulo, Prepersonal stage UL emotional intensity, such as fierce loyalty, LL tribal cohesion, such as gang identity, UR assertiveness, such as physical defense, and LR localized networks, such as gang structures, enable communities to protect themselves against threats like rival groups or police aggression. The inclusivity of late personal or systemic analysis of vision-logic requires trust and stability that don't exist in these contexts. In fact, they are likely to be perceived as weakness, to be exploited. The rapid, loyalty-based action of prepersonal stages ensures survival, whereas the empathy of late personal might expose vulnerabilities. The complexity of vision-logic is impractical under constant threat.

In post-disaster or conflict settings, such as Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, the UL focus on basic needs like food and shelter of prepersonal stages, LL kin-based trust, UR resource competition, and LR ad hoc survival systems ensure immediate survival. The global consciousness of early transpersonal or pluralism of late personal assumes resources and safety that are absent. The instinctual, tribal approach of prepersonal stages secures essentials, making it more adaptive. Wilber addresses this in terms of foundational “relational exchanges.” If these are not secure there is nothing for higher stages to build on. The lower stages exist to protect and maintain those foundational stages. A family in a refugee camp that prioritizes LL loyalty to kin over the broader community-building of late personal survives scarce resource allocation.

In families with domestic violence, the UL self-preservation of prepersonal stages, as well as UR escape behaviors, LL loyalty to self or allies, and LR navigation of immediate threats enable children to survive or escape. The relational harmony of late personal may trap individuals in harmful dynamics, and the reflective synthesis of vision-logic is irrelevant in urgent crises. The raw assertiveness of prepersonal stages is more effective. For example, a teenager fleeing sexual predation relies on UR action (running away) and UL survival instincts, not the empathy of late personal or the systemic reframing of vision-logic.

In war zones, such as Yemen or Syria, the UL survival instincts of prepersonal stages, LL tribal cohesion, UR fighting capacity, and LR localized defense systems enable communities to resist external threats, such as militias and warlords. The diplomacy of late personal or systemic reforms of vision-logic are too slow or abstract in life-or-death scenarios. The tribalism and decisiveness of prepersonal stages ensures group survival. Currently in Yemen, LL loyalty and UR combat skills are effectively defending a tribal society against the U.S. and UK, outperforming the global peace vision of vision-logic.

The simplicity, emotional intensity, and group loyalty of prepersonal stages are tailored to chaotic, high-threat environments where survival hinges on immediate, decisive action. Later stages' complexity, inclusivity, or long-term focus can be maladaptive, introducing delays or vulnerabilities.

Early Personal Stage

Early personal perspectives and worldviews emphasize tradition, authority, and collective norms, providing stability, predictability, and shared meaning in contexts requiring social cohesion or cultural continuity. In conservative groups, such as Amish, Orthodox Muslim communities, early personal UL duty, LL shared traditions, UR consistent behaviors, and LR hierarchical structures maintain group identity and resilience against external pressures, such as secularization. The inclusivity of late personal risks eroding cultural unity, and the fluidity of vision-logic may alienate members who value stability. The clear roles and traditions of early personal ensure group cohesion.

For example, an Amish community's LR adherence to traditional farming and LL shared faith outperforms the pluralistic outreach of late personal, which could disrupt identity. In nations rebuilding after war or colonization, such as Rwanda post-genocide, early personal UL shared beliefs, LL cultural unity, UR reliable behaviors, and LR stable governance, such as tribal councils rebuild trust and order.

The diversity of late personal focus can exacerbate divisions in fragile recoveries, and early transpersonal global vision lacks local resonance. The traditional narratives of early personal provide stability. Rwanda's use of LL communal reconciliation practices alongside LR governance stabilized society, outperforming the abstract integration of vision-logic. In large families with strong cultural traditions, such as South Asian households, early personal UL respect for elders, LL familial roles, UR role-based actions, and LR hierarchical decision-making ensure harmony and support during crises, such as financial hardship).

The egalitarian debates of late personal may disrupt established roles, and the systemic reframing of vision-logic is impractical for immediate needs. The clarity of early personal maintains family unity. For example, a family relying on LR patriarchal decisions to allocate resources during a crisis outperforms the consensus-driven approach of late personal. In countries facing external threats, such as Iran and Russia, the UL loyalty to ideology, LL cultural solidarity, UR disciplined actions, and LR centralized systems of early personal rally populations against perceived enemies. The openness of late personal risks internal division, as we are currently seeing in the fracturing of the Atlantic Alliance, particularly in Europe. The integrative solutions of vision-logic lack mobilizing power. The unity and hierarchy of early personal are more effective.

For example, Iran's LL theocratic solidarity and LR centralized governance maintain stability against sanctions, outperforming the globalism of early transpersonal. The early personal foundations of Russia and China have proven to be immense assets in defeating the powerful and persistent sanctions applied against them. The stability, cultural cohesion, and clear roles of early personal are tailored to contexts needing predictability and group unity. Later stages' diversity or complexity can destabilize or alienate, making early personal a better fit.

Mid-Personal Stage

The mid-personal promotes rationality, innovation, and individual achievement, driving progress in competitive, dynamic environments where empirical problem-solving and scalability are key. In startup hubs, such as Silicon Valley, and in China, the UL ambition, LL pragmatic norms, UR innovation, and LR meritocratic systems of mid-prepersonal drive rapid progress and economic success. The consensus-driven approach of late personal slows decision-making, and the holistic integration of vision-logic dilutes competitive focus. The rationality and scalability of mid-personal are more effective. For example, a tech startup's UR product launches and LR venture capital systems outperform the inclusive team dynamics of late personal, In nations like India, South Korea, and China, mid-personal UL critical thinking, LL merit-based values, UR economic outputs, and LR capitalist systems fuel growth and global integration.

The social equity of late personal focus may slow economic progress, and the ecological vision of early transpersonal is less urgent than immediate development. The innovation of mid-personal drives results. For example, South Korea's LR technological infrastructure and UL entrepreneurial drive outperform the long-term sustainability focus of early transpersonal.

In families prioritizing financial stability, such as urban middle-class households, the UL goal-setting, LL achievement culture, UR career actions, and LR economic strategies of mid-personal ensure upward mobility. The relational focus of late personal may neglect financial goals The complexity of vision-logic's maps is irrelevant to immediate needs. The rationality of mid-personal secures stability. For example, a family's UR focus on education and LR job market navigation outperforms the emotional bonding of late personal. In economic alliances, such as US-China trade talks, the UL strategic reasoning, LL pragmatic cooperation, UR data-driven decisions, and LR bureaucratic systems of mid-personal optimize outcomes. The emphasis on consensus of late personal stalls negotiations, and the holistic vision of vision-logic lacks practical focus. The rationality of mid-personal ensures efficiency.

Why Earlier Stages Are Preferred: Evolutionary and Contextual Fitness

The preference for earlier stages in these circumstances stems from their alignment with evolutionary and contextual fitness, defined as the ability to effectively meet the demands of a specific environment. Key reasons include:

Simplicity and Speed: Earlier prepersonal and early personal stages rely on instinctual, rule-based, or localized strategies that are faster and less cognitively demanding than the multi-perspectival or systemic approaches of late personal, vision-logic, or the transpersonal stages. In crises, such as war zones or abusive households, the UL decisiveness of prepersonal stages or the LR stability of early personal outperforms the UL complexity of vision-logic, which requires time and resources unavailable in urgent contexts.

Cultural and Systemic Resonance: Earlier stages align with existing LL cultural norms, such as tradition in early personal religious communities or LR systemic structures, such as capitalism in modernizing economies at mid-personal. The pluralism of late personal or the integration of vision-logic may clash with these, leading to resistance or ineffectiveness. For example, the LL unity of early personal in post-conflict Rwanda resonates more than the diversity focus of early personal.

Focused Strengths: Each earlier stage has specialized strengths—the survival instincts of prepersonal, the cultural stability of early personal, the innovation of mid-personal—that are diluted in higher stages broader capacities. For instance, the UR assertiveness of prepersonal in a gang context is more effective than the UR community-oriented behaviors of late personal, which may compromise safety.

Resource Efficiency: Earlier stages require fewer cognitive, emotional, or systemic resources, making them sustainable in constrained environments. For example, the UL duty of early personal in a traditional family conserves energy compared to the UL systemic reflection of vision. logic, which is impractical during a crisis.

Avoiding Maladaptive Complexity: Higher stages' complexity can lead to over-analysis, indecision, or cultural disconnect. Earlier stages' focused approaches, such as the LR policy focus in trade talks of mid-personal, avoid these pitfalls, ensuring actionable outcomes.

Avoiding Discrimination, Elitism, and Stereotyping

By framing stages as context-specific adaptive advantages, the model avoids labeling earlier stages, such as prepersonal and early personal as “lower” or disfavored. For example, recognizing the survival strength of prepersonal in refugee camps respects the adaptive value of marginalized communities' strategies, reducing bias.

Emphasizing that vision-logic or transpersonal stages are not inherently superior dismantles the elitist assumption that integral solutions are always best. The rationality of mid-personal in trade negotiations or the stability of early personal in traditional families is valued for its contextual fit, not ranked below teal.

Focusing on specific behaviors or systems, such as the LR survival networks of prepersonal stages in war zones, rather than labeling entire groups, such as “Syrians are red”, prevents stereotyping. Granular, quadrant-based analysis ensures precision.

Solutions grounded in earlier stages incorporate LR accountability, such as legal frameworks in mid-personal trade systems and international law, as well as LL social norms, such as trust in early personal communities, ensuring transparency and alignment with justice.

An Integral Decision-Making Process (IDMP) for balancing multi-perspectivalism and commitment

The purpose is to identify the most adaptive developmental strategies for the context, valuing earlier stages' strengths where appropriate, while fostering inclusive, accountable solutions:

• Assess each quadrant's developmental dynamics as adaptive advantages suited to the specific context, such as prepersonal level survival in war zones, the innovation of mid-personal in startups. Use neutral language, such as “context-adaptive” instead of “lower”.
• Engage stakeholders to co-define their adaptive strategies, ensuring marginalized groups, such as prepersonal or early personal communities are respected.
• Analyze UL (values), LL (culture), UR (behaviors), and LR (systems) to identify where earlier stages' strengths, such the stability of early personal, outperform later stages' complexity, such as the integration of vision-logic.
• Embed LR legal frameworks, such as international law, and LL social norms, such as respect and trust to ensure solutions are transparent and just.
• Focus on specific systems or behaviors, such as the UR defense tactics of prepersonal stages, to avoid stereotyping groups.

Application to Two Geopolitical Examples

Palestinian Genocide

The UL resilience and LL tribal cohesion of prepersonal stages are superior for Palestinian communities under siege, ensuring survival against LR occupation. The LL cultural traditions, of early personal, such as Palestinian identity, provide stability. These outperform the LR systemic reforms of vision-logic, which are too abstract for immediate needs. Require adherence to mid-personal international law in the LR instead of imagining that because Western democracies believe they transcend it, they somehow include it, despite making themselves unaccountable to it. Israel and its allies have underestimated the inherent strengths of prepersonal and early personal societal developmental levels.

Russia-Ukraine War

The LL cultural solidarity and LR hierarchical mobilization in Russia, both early personal attributes, ensure national cohesion against perceived threats, outperforming the late personal LL culture of the West, which assumes both that Russia is a threat and that it wants and needs what the West has. The U.S. and its allies, by applying late personal and vision-logic assumptions to Russia, have misperceived its strengths as weakness, leading to the defeat of the West in Ukraine.

Conclusion

The "transcend and include" principle in AQAL assumes higher stages, such as late personal, vision-logic, and the transpersonal stages are more adaptive due to their integration of earlier stages' capacities. However, this is a poor fit for life circumstances where simplicity, stability, or rationality are paramount, such as high-threat crises, where prepersonal stages are most adaptive, early personal traditional communities, or mid-personal competitive markets. Earlier stages are superior in these contexts because they offer focused, resource-efficient, and culturally resonant adaptive advantages that align with immediate environmental demands. The survival instincts of prepersonal stages thrive in war zones or abusive households. The stability of early personal anchors traditional families or post-conflict societies in powerful and productive ways, as we can see throughout Asia. The innovation of mid-personal drives startups or trade negotiations and its laws organize society by forcing accountability. These stages outperform the complexity, inclusivity, or abstraction of late personal, vision-logic, and transpersonal stages, which can be maladaptive due to delays, resource demands, or cultural disconnects.

By reframing stages as context-specific evolutionary advantages and integrating them into the IDMP's Developmental Contextualization step, AQAL can operationalize solutions that respect earlier stages' strengths, avoid elitism and stereotyping, and ensure accountability to social norms and legal frameworks.

Practical take-away for integralists are:

• Stop thinking and talking about developmental stages in terms of “higher” or “lower.” It's intrinsically discriminatory. This can easily be remedied by simply referring to each stage by its name.
• Think about stages in terms of functional fit: adaptability, rather than “transcend and include.” That is because “transcend and include” assumes greater competence when that competence may not in fact exist, or it does not apply to the particular problem. It also is elitist in that it assumes it understands, includes, and takes into account the competencies of other stages.
• Remember that simpler is often better, and that prepersonal and early personal stages have built-in adaptational advantages over later stages for that reason.

These simple changes will go a long way toward eliminating built-in but largely unrecognized elitism and exceptionalism within the Integral model as it has been formulated in the past.