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

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Postmetaphysical Gestures

Alexander Love, Developmental Theory, and the Problem of Turning Metaphysics into a Map

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction: A New Integral Framework?

In Postmetaphysical Gestures (with Alexander Love, Part 1), Alexander Love and his interviewer, Layman Pascal, explore an ambitious attempt to rethink developmental theory within the framework of integral postmetaphysics. Their conversation moves from epistemology and ontology to developmental stages, embryology, Chinese cosmology, collective intelligence, and the possibility of constructing increasingly flexible metatheories.

The central proposal is Love's prism: a framework organized around three dimensions—epistemology, ontology, and what he calls sympoiesis—held together by a fourth element, gesture. The latter is described as the dynamic movement or "fabric" through which knowing, being, and becoming-with-the-world develop together.

The ambition is attractive. Rather than treating human development as a rigid staircase toward a supposedly superior state of consciousness, Love wants to describe it as a complex interplay of capacities, relationships, cultural contexts, and developmental trajectories. His metaphor of developmental harmonics replaces the image of a single ascending line with something closer to a musical composition, in which several notes remain active and interact over time.

Yet the interview also raises a fundamental question: does this framework genuinely explain development, or does it mainly provide an elaborate vocabulary for interpreting it? And can a philosophy escape metaphysical dogmatism simply by declaring its categories fluid, relational, and mutually constitutive?

The conversation offers several promising insights, but its central concepts remain insufficiently distinguished from one another, and its claims about evolution, developmental structures, and the nature of reality require considerably more justification than the interview provides.

1. The Prism: Three Dimensions and a Wiggle

Love introduces the prism as a way of integrating three questions.

Epistemology concerns how we know: the perspectives and interpretive lenses through which we make sense of the world. Ontology concerns what exists and what reality is like. Sympoiesis concerns how we become with the world through relationships, interactions, and processes of mutual formation. Love prefers this last term to the more conventional language of methodology because it suggests an ongoing process rather than a fixed procedure.

A fourth element, gesture, supplies the dynamism. It is not supposed to be a separate component sitting inside the prism. Rather, it is the process through which the other dimensions take shape.

This is an interesting conceptual arrangement. Knowledge cannot be entirely separated from the conditions under which it is acquired; human beings are embodied, socially situated organisms; and the world we encounter is partly structured by our activities and relationships. Any adequate account of human development must therefore connect cognition, reality, and interaction.

But these observations do not yet establish that the prism is a distinctive theoretical advance.

Epistemology, ontology, and methodology are already familiar philosophical categories. Sympoiesis adds a relational and process-oriented emphasis, but the interview does not sufficiently clarify what explanatory work it performs that concepts such as interaction, embodiment, social construction, ecological embeddedness, or reciprocal causation cannot perform.

Nor is the relationship between the three dimensions and gesture entirely clear. If gesture is the process through which epistemology, ontology, and sympoiesis emerge, is it a causal mechanism, a general principle of organization, a metaphor for change, or simply another name for the total process?

Love explicitly warns against treating the diagram too literally. Gesture is compared to the fabric of a shirt rather than the core of an apple. That qualification is sensible, but it also makes the model harder to assess. If the central element is not a distinct component and cannot be localized, what precisely does the diagram explain?

A conceptual map can be useful without being a literal picture of reality. The difficulty arises when a diagram is simultaneously presented as a heuristic, a developmental theory, and a description of the fundamental structure of becoming. Those are different ambitions, requiring different standards of justification.

2. The Postmetaphysical Paradox

The interview becomes philosophically more interesting when the participants address the status of the model itself.

Love acknowledges that the prism is a model of understanding, but also calls it its own ontology, epistemology, and prismic configuration. This leads to a characteristic integral postmetaphysical position: rather than simply declaring what something is, we ask through which perspectives and practices it becomes intelligible.

Pascal formulates the move as a problematization of the concept of is. A more elaborate postmetaphysical approach then attempts to incorporate the results of that problematization back into the meaning of is.

This formulation captures both the attraction and the danger of the project.

The attraction is that it discourages naive realism about our conceptual schemes. Our descriptions are not identical to the things described. Different investigative practices can disclose different features of the same reality, and our categories may require revision when new evidence or experiences become available.

The danger is that the qualification can become limitless. If every claim about reality is redescribed as something that emerges through a particular perspective, and every perspective is itself understood as participating in the emergence of its own reality, what remains of the distinction between a mistaken interpretation and a well-supported one?

Love suggests that even a psychotic or radically distorted perspective can be associated with a corresponding, distorted world. The charitable intention is understandable: take people's experiences seriously rather than dismissing them out of hand. But the formulation risks confusing the reality of an experience with the truth of its interpretation.

A person can genuinely experience persecution without actually being persecuted by the person they identify as the persecutor. A delusion is not rendered factually accurate by acknowledging that the world as experienced by the deluded person is real as an experience.

We need to distinguish at least three things: the reality of the experiencing subject, the phenomenal world as experienced, and the external circumstances that can be investigated independently of that experience.

These distinctions do not undermine compassion. On the contrary, they allow us to respect people without having to validate every belief they hold. We can acknowledge the psychological reality of an experience while investigating whether its interpretation corresponds to external events.

The same distinction matters for integral philosophy. Perspectives influence what we notice, how we organize evidence, and which questions we ask. But this does not automatically mean that perspectives generate entirely different external realities.

A postmetaphysical philosophy should therefore be able to say not only that different perspectives disclose different worlds, but also that some claims are better supported than others. Without that criterion, epistemic humility risks becoming epistemic permissiveness.

3. Is the Model Really Postmetaphysical?

The interview repeatedly emphasizes flexibility. Love insists that the prism is one possible way of exploring the mystery, not the definitive account of reality. He also resists forcing its three principal dimensions into Ken Wilber's four quadrants.

These are welcome qualifications. Yet the framework repeatedly moves beyond a modest account of human meaning-making toward claims about the underlying structure of existence.

The prism is described as one of the most basic structures of becoming in time and space. Its evolutionary engine is said to shape what we experience as reality, the perspectives we can take, and the ways we become with the world. The participants discuss whether this structure applies to atoms, whether some form of experience might be universal, and whether the distinction between knower and known represents a fundamental feature of reality.

At this point, the question is no longer merely how humans construct or interpret developmental models. It becomes a question about the fundamental organization of the universe.

Calling such a framework postmetaphysical does not settle its metaphysical status. A theory can reject fixed, absolute categories while still making claims about the basic constitution of reality. Process philosophy, relational ontology, and various forms of metaphysical naturalism all offer alternatives to static substance-based metaphysics, but they remain philosophical accounts of what exists and how it behaves.

The relevant distinction is not between metaphysics and the absence of metaphysics. It is between metaphysical claims that are acknowledged and argued for, and claims that enter a theory under the less conspicuous names of gesture, becoming, or evolutionary structure.

Love's framework may be intended as a provisional orientation rather than a literal cosmology. If so, the distinction should remain explicit. Otherwise, the language of postmetaphysics can function as a rhetorical exemption from the very questions that metaphysics is supposed to address.

4. The Sacred Gap: From Developmental Psychology to Cosmic Structure

One of the interview's most intriguing concepts is the sacred gap: the distinction between knower and known. Love associates its pronounced emergence with early childhood, when a child develops a stronger sense of self and begins to distinguish objects, other people, and the surrounding world.

The discussion raises a legitimate developmental question. How do capacities for self-recognition, object discrimination, social understanding, and reflective awareness emerge? And how should we understand the relationship between an infant's early experience and the more differentiated world of an older child?

Love proposes an interesting alternative to the idea that all future developmental capacities must already be fully contained within the individual. Some of the conditions for development, he suggests, may be held by the surrounding collective: parents, other people, cultural practices, and the social environment.

This is a productive relational insight. Development does not occur in isolation. Language, social cognition, norms, and many forms of intellectual competence depend on interaction with an environment that already embodies capacities the developing individual has yet to acquire.

But the discussion moves between several different meanings of separation without adequately distinguishing them.

There is the biological differentiation of organisms and their environments; the perceptual discrimination of objects; the development of a self-concept; the recognition that other people have independent perspectives; and the philosophical distinction between subject and object. These phenomena are related, but they are not identical.

The fact that a two-year-old develops a more explicit sense of self does not demonstrate that a universal metaphysical separation has just become manifest. Nor does the existence of biological boundaries establish that atoms or cells experience separation in anything like the human sense.

Love sometimes acknowledges this uncertainty, noting that he does not know what other kinds of experience might exist in the cosmos. That caution is appropriate. Nevertheless, the framework invites the reader to move between psychological development, biological organization, and universal ontological principles as though they were different expressions of a single underlying gesture.

Such an interpretation may be philosophically suggestive, but it needs an argument connecting the levels. A similarity between phenomena is not, by itself, evidence that they share a common developmental mechanism.

The sacred gap is most useful when treated as a conceptual tool for exploring human differentiation and self-awareness. Its status as a fundamental structure of reality remains unestablished.

5. Developmental Harmonics: An Improvement on the Staircase?

The interview's strongest practical idea is its criticism of simplistic developmental hierarchies.

Love argues that development is not merely a sequence of stages through which people ascend toward greater sophistication. It is better understood as a set of interacting capacities, with earlier patterns remaining active and sometimes reappearing in later circumstances. He calls this developmental harmonics.

The musical analogy is effective. Asking what developmental stage someone occupies can conceal important differences between domains of functioning. Someone may demonstrate sophisticated abstract reasoning while remaining emotionally reactive in relationships. Another person may possess considerable interpersonal sensitivity without comparable theoretical sophistication. A person's capacities may also change with context, stress, experience, and the people with whom they interact.

Love's framework attempts to accommodate these uneven trajectories. Its arrows can move upward and downward, and its different developmental dimensions need not advance in lockstep. Pascal reinforces the point by questioning whether a more complete expression of a developmental stage is necessarily better than a minimal one, especially when considered at the level of a diverse social ecology.

This is a valuable corrective to simplistic readings of stage theory.

However, the interview does not establish that the proposed harmonics are a validated model of development. A useful metaphor is not yet an explanatory theory. To establish the latter, one would need clear definitions of the capacities being measured, evidence that they develop in the proposed patterns, and procedures for distinguishing genuine developmental transitions from temporary fluctuations or differences in education, culture, personality, and opportunity.

The framework also needs to distinguish between a person's developmental history and the social availability of more advanced capacities. Love's example of children growing up in a pluralistic environment is plausible: children can be exposed to values and practices that later become resources for their own development. But exposure does not guarantee acquisition, and the developmental effects of a cultural environment are not necessarily uniform.

The musical analogy also leaves a question unresolved. If development involves many interacting notes, how do we determine which notes are actually present, how they relate, and whether the resulting pattern constitutes a developmental advance? Without operational criteria, the metaphor can accommodate almost any outcome after the fact.

Developmental harmonics is therefore best regarded, at this stage, as a promising interpretive heuristic rather than an established alternative to conventional developmental psychology.

6. Five Gestures and the Return of Archetypal Cosmology

Love's presentation of Terry's developmental research introduces five gestures, associated with the numbers one through five and interpreted through Chinese cosmological imagery.

One represents receptive unity and is associated with water. Two introduces distinction and active differentiation, associated with fire. Three represents reciprocity and mediation, associated with wood. Four represents maturation, structure, and interreflection, associated with metal. Five introduces transition and interdependency.

The scheme is intended to describe recurring patterns of becoming. Love connects it with embryological development, Chinese characters, natural processes, and the emergence of social structures. He is careful at several points to distinguish his own interpretations from historical claims about Chinese symbols, and he explicitly credits Terry's research rather than presenting the framework as an entirely original model.

That intellectual caution deserves recognition. The difficulty lies not in using symbolic associations as metaphors, but in the evidential status assigned to them.

Water can illustrate fluidity; fire can illustrate differentiation; a tree can illustrate mediation between different domains. Such analogies can help people remember abstract ideas and explore possible relationships between processes. But the fact that a symbol is evocative does not establish that it reveals a universal developmental law.

The same problem appears when the five gestures are associated with stages of embryogenesis. Embryonic development involves well-studied processes of cell division, differentiation, signaling, tissue formation, and morphogenesis. To demonstrate that these processes instantiate the same five gestures as human psychological development would require more than a resemblance between diagrams or a suggestive correspondence between numbers.

One would need to specify the relevant biological mechanisms and show why the proposed mapping explains something that established embryology does not already explain. Otherwise, the correspondence remains an interpretive analogy.

Love's own discussion makes the problem particularly visible when the participants ask why the sequence stops at five. Love replies that he wants to remain faithful to Terry's research and that Chinese cosmology provides a further rationale for the five preheaven numbers. He also notes that the scheme could be extended in other ways.

This answer reveals an important distinction. The number five is not derived in the interview from a demonstrated universal law of development. It is inherited from a particular research framework and then interpreted through a symbolic tradition.

That is not necessarily a defect in a heuristic model. It becomes a problem if the symbolic correspondences are taken as independent evidence that the model describes the fundamental structure of evolution.

7. Evolution's Engine: A Mechanism or a Metaphor?

The phrase evolution's engine gives the framework much of its explanatory force. It refers to the dynamic gesture through which the prism unfolds, shaping ontology, epistemology, and sympoiesis.

But the word evolution is doing several jobs in the conversation. At different points, it refers to biological development, the historical emergence of increasingly complex forms, the development of human capacities, and a more general process of becoming.

These processes may be related, but they should not be conflated.

Biological evolution has specific explanatory mechanisms, including mutation, inheritance, natural selection, genetic drift, and developmental constraints. Individual psychological development involves learning, maturation, plasticity, and social interaction. Cultural evolution involves the transmission and transformation of practices, norms, and information. Philosophical accounts of becoming attempt to characterize change at a more general level.

A comprehensive theory might seek relationships between these processes. But it cannot establish those relationships simply by describing all of them as manifestations of a common evolutionary gesture.

Indeed, Pascal raises a concern at approximately the thirty-fifth minute: the appeal to everything being one thing could become a way of avoiding precise questions. Love responds that the framework is intended to capture the messiness of development, not to suggest a simple linear progression.

That response addresses the intention but not entirely the problem. A theory can be non-linear and still be precise. Complexity does not require conceptual indeterminacy, and a model of multiple interacting processes should make it possible to identify those processes and specify their relationships.

If the engine is a metaphor for change, it can be useful without being a causal explanation. If it is proposed as a general mechanism underlying biological, psychological, and cultural development, then the interview needs to explain what that mechanism consists of and how it operates.

Until that distinction is made, evolution's engine remains an evocative organizing concept rather than an established explanatory principle.

8. The Metatheory Compiler: Pluralism Without Losing Judgment

One of Pascal's more interesting suggestions is that metatheories could be treated as collections of conceptual components. Rather than committing to a single comprehensive map, one might extract useful elements from different frameworks and combine them as circumstances require. In principle, a computer could generate a suitable metatheory from a set of variables chosen to fit a particular problem and the user's capacities.

This is an attractive vision of intellectual pluralism. It treats theoretical models as tools rather than sacred objects and recognizes that a framework useful for one question may be unsuitable for another.

It also anticipates a practical use of computational systems: comparing conceptual structures, identifying assumptions, and assembling different analytical perspectives.

But a metatheory compiler would need more than a library of conceptual components. It would need criteria for deciding which components are compatible, which assumptions they share, and which combinations generate contradictions.

For example, one theory might treat development as a real sequence of causal transitions, while another interprets stages primarily as culturally situated descriptions. These approaches cannot simply be combined without clarifying their different commitments. Likewise, a framework that treats ontology as dependent on perspective cannot automatically be combined with one that assumes a mind-independent hierarchy of developmental structures.

The fact that two ideas are individually useful does not guarantee that they can be integrated into a coherent whole.

There is also a risk of excessive customization. A theory tailored to fit the user, the situation, and the desired level of complexity might become more accommodating without becoming more accurate. If every disagreement can be resolved by generating a new combination of conceptual elements, the resulting metatheory may evade rather than solve the original problem.

A genuinely useful compiler would therefore need an explicit account of evidence, consistency, explanatory scope, and the limits of its own models. Pluralism is most productive when it includes rules for rejecting unsuitable combinations, not merely procedures for generating new ones.

9. What the Interview Gets Right—and What It Leaves Unresolved

The conversation's most convincing contributions are its resistance to rigid developmental hierarchies, its emphasis on the relational conditions of human development, and its recognition that a person's capacities may be unevenly distributed across contexts and domains.

Love also shows some commendable intellectual restraint. He repeatedly acknowledges that the prism is one possible way of looking at things, distinguishes his interpretation of Chinese symbolism from historical claims, and credits the underlying developmental research to Terry rather than claiming to have invented it.

Pascal is a valuable interlocutor because he does not merely endorse the presentation. He asks whether the prism is an ontology, whether the sacred gap is a developmental fact or a metaphysical assumption, whether the gestures require a particular number, and whether the appeal to unity risks making the theory unfalsifiable. These questions expose tensions that a more promotional conversation might have ignored.

Nevertheless, the discussion remains exploratory rather than demonstrative. The participants often move from an intuitive analogy to a broad theoretical implication without establishing the intervening steps. Psychological development, embryology, Chinese cosmology, and evolutionary theory are brought into a single interpretive space, but the conditions under which these connections count as evidence rather than analogy remain unclear.

The interview also does not provide enough information to evaluate the empirical foundations of Terry's developmental model. Love refers to research, scoring procedures, recurring response patterns, and the distinction between deep structure and content. Those claims deserve examination in their own right, but the conversation does not supply the necessary methodological detail to assess their reliability, validity, or reproducibility.

A critical review should therefore distinguish between the plausibility of the general ideas and the evidential status of the specific framework. The former is often strong; the latter remains undetermined by this interview.

Conclusion: A Useful Map, Not Yet a Theory of Reality

Postmetaphysical Gestures is an engaging exploration of how integral developmental theory might become more flexible, relational, and sensitive to the complexity of human experience. Love's prism offers a vocabulary for connecting knowing, being, and becoming-with, while developmental harmonics challenges the simplistic idea that people progress along a single, uniform ladder.

These are worthwhile ambitions. But the framework's philosophical promise should not be confused with its explanatory achievement.

The central problem is that the conversation repeatedly shifts between three levels of discourse: a practical model for interpreting human development, a philosophical account of how perspectives shape experience, and a speculative account of the fundamental structure of reality. Each level raises different questions, and success at one does not establish success at the others.

A developmental map can be useful without being a universal ontology. A metaphor can illuminate a pattern without demonstrating a causal mechanism. A postmetaphysical philosophy can remain open to multiple perspectives while still distinguishing experience from fact, analogy from evidence, and a provisional hypothesis from an established conclusion.

The best way forward would be to make the framework more explicit about these distinctions. What does each gesture mean operationally? What observations would count as evidence for its presence? How are developmental stages identified and scored? Which claims are empirical, which are philosophical, and which are metaphorical? What findings would lead proponents to revise or abandon a particular part of the model?

These questions would not diminish the exploratory spirit of the project. They would help it mature.

The irony is that a framework designed to overcome rigid maps may itself become an increasingly elaborate map of everything. Its postmetaphysical credentials will depend not on how many perspectives it can accommodate, or how fluidly it can redescribe reality, but on whether it can clarify what it knows, what it assumes, and what remains to be demonstrated.

For now, the prism is an interesting philosophical heuristic and a potentially fruitful way to organize questions about development. It is not yet a demonstrated theory of evolution, consciousness, or the structure of reality. The distinction matters precisely because the project aspires to be more than an attractive arrangement of ideas.