• 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).

Toward a Pluralistic Integralism

Mapping the New Landscape of Meta-Theoretical Thought

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

The past several decades have seen a blossoming of meta-theoretical and integrative frameworks that seek to go beyond the fragmented epistemologies of modern and postmodern thought. Often working at the boundaries of disciplines—philosophy, science, spirituality, psychology, systems theory, and cultural critique—these thinkers are responding to an increasingly complex world that demands new kinds of synthesis. While Ken Wilber's Integral Theory remains one of the most widely known of these efforts, a host of parallel and alternative approaches have emerged, challenging, enriching, and in some cases eclipsing Wilber's once-dominant paradigm.

This essay surveys a wide range of these efforts—from Mark Edward's Integrative Meta-Studies to Bobby Azarian's Poetic Meta-Naturalism, from the philosophical rigor of Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism to the mythopoetic flair of David J. Temple's Cosmoerotic Humanism. Together, they constitute a vital ecosystem of integrative inquiry, diverse in method and vision yet united in the pursuit of understanding complexity, consciousness, and the nature of reality.[1]

1. Mark Edward's Integrative Meta-Studies

A former Wilberian who developed a more reflexive and epistemologically grounded alternative, Mark Edwards offers one of the most mature critiques of Integral Theory from within the integrative tradition. His Integrative Meta-Studies is not a new theory of everything but a meta-disciplinary lens for studying integrative theories themselves. Drawing on systems theory, reflexivity, and critical realism, Edwards emphasizes the importance of context, methodology, and epistemic humility. Unlike Wilber's “Theory of Everything,” Edwards sees integrative meta-studies as a practice of constant boundary-crossing, not a closed map.

2. Charles Johnston's Creative Systems Theory

Johnston's work is a rich synthesis of developmental psychology, cultural history, and systems thinking. His central claim is that human evolution unfolds through stages of meaning-making, culminating in what he calls the “Creative Systems Paradigm”—a mode of thought capable of integrating reason, feeling, and will. Unlike Wilber's hierarchical model of development, Johnston focuses on creativity as the engine of change, proposing a dynamic rather than static model of growth. He resists premature totalization, arguing for a “convoluted unfolding” rather than linear ascent.

3. Ken Wilber's Integral Theory

No survey of meta-theory would be complete without Wilber, who arguably inaugurated the integrative turn with his early work on developmental psychology and Eastern mysticism. His AQAL model (quadrants, levels, lines, states, types) remains a powerful heuristic, especially in the realms of personal transformation and organizational development. Yet critics have long noted Wilber's theological underpinnings—especially his belief in an Eros or telos driving evolution—and the tendency of his system toward metaphysical closure. His later work, especially in the Wilber-5 phase, drifts into what many view as spiritual idealism masquerading as epistemic pluralism.

4. Edgar Morin's Complex Thought

French philosopher and systems theorist Edgar Morin has long called for a “reform of thought” grounded in complexity, uncertainty, and interdependence. His Complex Thought resists reductionism in all its forms—scientific, philosophical, or spiritual. Morin does not seek to unify all knowledge under one meta-framework but rather to honor the irreducibility of the real. His method is ecological and dialogical, recognizing that all thinking is situated, all systems are nested, and all understanding is partial. Morin is arguably more radical than Wilber in his deconstruction of totalizing narratives.

5. Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism and metaReality

Bhaskar's Critical Realism provides a sophisticated ontology that affirms the reality of structures, mechanisms, and causal powers that are not directly observable. His later work on metaReality brings this realism into dialogue with non-dual spirituality, offering a vision of “non-dual being” that remains grounded in scientific rigor. Bhaskar is crucial for any integrative theory that seeks to bridge ontology and epistemology without collapsing one into the other. Unlike Wilber's panentheistic metaphysics, Bhaskar's realism maintains a robust distinction between the real, the actual, and the empirical.

6. Paul Marshall's Complex Integral Realism

Marshall's recent work synthesizes Bhaskar's realism with integral models of consciousness, particularly emphasizing non-dual awareness. His Complex Integral Realism is a direct rejoinder to both reductive materialism and uncritical spiritual holism. Marshall acknowledges the usefulness of Wilber's AQAL model but critiques its metaphysical inflation. His goal is to keep the mystical grounded in the real—to “complexify” integral thought without resorting to cosmic teleology.

7. Metamodernism: Dutch and Nordic Schools

Metamodernism has emerged as a cultural and philosophical movement that oscillates between modernist sincerity and postmodern irony. Thinkers like Hanzi Freinacht (Nordic school) and Brent Cooper (Dutch-influenced) offer a generational update to integral thought, infused with political urgency and social critique. Rather than transcending and including past stages in a neatly stacked spiral, metamodernism embraces oscillation, paradox, and democratic depth. It often avoids metaphysical claims altogether, preferring pragmatic idealism to cosmic schemes.[2]

8. Gregg Henriques' Unified Theory of Knowledge

Henriques' “UTOK” is a serious attempt to resolve psychology's fragmentation by integrating evolutionary science, behavioral psychology, and philosophical naturalism into a single metatheory. He uses the Tree of Knowledge (ToK) system as a guiding metaphor for this integration. Unlike Wilber's sweeping spiritual narrative, UTOK stays grounded in empirical research while acknowledging the layered complexity of cognition, culture, and selfhood. It is one of the few models that successfully bridges academic psychology with meta-theoretical reflection.

9. David J. Temple's Cosmoerotic Humanism

Temple's vision is arguably the most poetic and mythopoeic of the lot, drawing on evolutionary spirituality, tantra, and transpersonal psychology. His Cosmoerotic Humanism is a grand synthesis of Eros and ethics, proposing a new mythos for humanity as an expression of the erotic unfolding of the cosmos. While indebted to Wilber, Temple distances himself by emphasizing divine immanence over hierarchical transcendence. His work is both inspirational and controversial, depending on one's appetite for spiritually-charged language.[3]

10. Jason A. J. Strom's Process Social Ontology and Metarealism

Blending process philosophy, sociology, and continental metaphysics, Strom's approach offers a nuanced theory of social reality as a dynamic unfolding of relations. His Metarealism draws from Bhaskar but retools it in the direction of social ontology and complexity science. Strom represents a younger generation of meta-theorists less interested in spiritual narratives and more focused on integrating social theory, ontology, and ethics.

11. Bobby Azarian's Poetic Meta-Naturalism

Cognitive neuroscientist Bobby Azarian proposes a “Unifying Theory of Reality” that redefines the supernatural as meta-natural—not beyond nature but emergent from its deepest principles. His Poetic Meta-Naturalism is a kind of spiritualized scientific naturalism, drawing on complexity theory, information theory, and cybernetics to argue that the universe tends toward greater complexity, consciousness, and meaning. Unlike Wilber, Azarian claims to remain within a naturalistic paradigm while allowing for poetic depth.

12. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens' Exo Studies

A former close collaborator of Wilber's, Esbjörn-Hargens has since ventured into the field of Exo Studies, a multidisciplinary exploration of anomalous phenomena—UFOs, psi, and other ontological shockers. Using an Integral methodological pluralism, he investigates how our understanding of reality is limited by anthropocentric and materialist assumptions. His work stretches the boundaries of epistemic inclusion without collapsing into credulity—a balancing act that mirrors the broader challenges of integrative meta-theory.

Conclusion: Toward a Pluralistic Integralism

The era of one integral theory is over. What we are witnessing today is an ecosystem of integrative meta-theories—some spiritually inclined, others rigorously scientific, still others politically or socially driven. While Wilber's Integral Theory still casts a long shadow, it is increasingly clear that no single framework can dominate the terrain of complexity, consciousness, and reality.

This is a healthy development. It marks a maturation of the integrative impulse itself, away from guru-centric systems toward dialogical pluralism. The future of meta-theory lies not in a new synthesis that claims finality but in an ongoing, reflexive conversation—a meta-modern mandala of perspectives, each illuminating different aspects of the human condition.

For Integral World, long a site of critical engagement with Wilberian thought, the emergence of this broader landscape invites a renewed exploration of what it means to think integratively—without metaphysical shortcuts, and with an eye to both rigor and wonder.

Here is a critical evaluation of the twelve meta-theoretical and integrative frameworks discussed—highlighting their contributions, limitations, and tensions with one another. This evaluation assumes the Integral World context, which values both visionary ambition and empirical responsibility.

1. Mark Edwards – Integrative Meta-Studies

Strengths:

Offers a much-needed meta-critical framework that studies integrative theories themselves.

Avoids metaphysical inflation by emphasizing reflexivity, context, and methodological pluralism.

Weaknesses:

Lacks the visionary or cultural appeal of systems like Wilber's or Morin's; it is more academic and cautious.

Its abstract nature may make it inaccessible to practitioners looking for applied wisdom.

Critique:

Edwards's approach corrects Wilber's totalizing tendencies, but risks retreating into meta-meta abstraction. It is indispensable for scholars but less engaging for broader audiences.

2. Charles Johnston – Creative Systems Theory

Strengths:

Centers creativity as the core evolutionary force in culture and psyche.

Bridges systemic thinking with personal development and social evolution.

Weaknesses:

Developmental stages remain loosely defined and under-theorized.

Lacks integration with scientific findings in cognitive science or evolutionary biology.

Critique:

Johnston provides a deeply humane and optimistic vision, but its theoretical vagueness and insularity from mainstream science limit its wider adoption.

3. Ken Wilber – Integral Theory

Strengths:

A comprehensive and ambitious system combining psychology, spirituality, and systems theory.

Pioneered popular interest in integrative thinking.

Weaknesses:

Suffers from metaphysical overreach (e.g., cosmic Eros, spiritual teleology).

Often conflates developmental psychology with spiritual hierarchy.

Treats his framework as final rather than provisional.

Critique:

Wilber's strength lies in systematization, but his Achilles heel is dogmatism disguised as inclusion. He offers a cathedral when what's needed is a collaborative research institute.

4. Edgar Morin – Complex Thought

Strengths:

Deeply rooted in scientific epistemology and systems theory.

Emphasizes humility, uncertainty, and dialogical reason.

Globally respected across disciplines.

Weaknesses:

Its dense style and lack of clear typologies or stages make application difficult.

Offers critique more than construction—a powerful deconstruction of reductionism without a unified model.

Critique:

Morin is perhaps the most epistemologically rigorous of the group. But in terms of accessibility and impact outside academia, he remains underutilized.

5. Roy Bhaskar – Critical Realism / metaReality

Strengths:

Provides a robust ontology that underpins much of the best in integrative theory.

Bridges the spiritual and scientific without collapsing them.

Weaknesses:

metaReality phase becomes increasingly esoteric, verging on mystical idealism.

Difficult reading; requires a steep philosophical background.

Critique:

Bhaskar's early work is essential for grounding integrative thought. His later metaphysical turn is either a bold synthesis or an unnecessary detour, depending on one's stance.

6. Paul Marshall – Complex Integral Realism

Strengths:

Thoughtful synthesis of Bhaskar, non-dual philosophy, and complexity science.

Offers a grounded alternative to Wilber's spiritual idealism.

Weaknesses:

Still under development and underexposed in integrative circles.

Some ambiguity remains in balancing “complex realism” with non-dual claims.

Critique:

Marshall represents an emerging paradigm that deserves more attention—an example of how the Integral movement can mature beyond Wilberian metaphysics.

7. Metamodernism (Dutch/Nordic Schools)

Strengths:

Offers a cultural grammar of oscillation, irony, and renewed sincerity.

Popular among younger generations disenchanted with both postmodern relativism and spiritual absolutism.

Weaknesses:

Lacks a stable ontology or deep philosophical architecture.

Often a mood or cultural sensibility more than a theory.

Critique:

Metamodernism is powerful as a diagnosis of cultural affect, but still immature as a model of mind, reality, or development. It's a promising soil, not yet a sturdy tree.

8. Gregg Henriques – Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTOK)

Strengths:

Resolves key fragmentation issues in psychology and naturalism.

Deeply grounded in science and coherent across levels of analysis.

Weaknesses:

Limited engagement with spirituality or contemplative traditions.

Some aspects of the ToK system feel overly schematic or formalized.

Critique:

Henriques offers a necessary counterbalance to Wilber—an empiricist who doesn't retreat into reductionism. His system is rigorous but needs more humanistic nuance.

9. David J. Temple – Cosmoerotic Humanism

Strengths:

Visionary fusion of erotic spirituality, ethics, and evolutionary cosmology.

Rich in narrative, aesthetics, and archetypal language.

Weaknesses:

Excessively poetic and metaphysically inflated for many academics or scientists.

Risks spiritual narcissism or cultic resonance.

Critique:

Temple offers inspiration, but not verification. His mythopoetic framework needs empirical grounding and sharper epistemic boundaries to avoid Wilber-like overreach.

10. Jason A. J. Strom – Process Social Ontology & Metarealism

Strengths:

Sophisticated blend of process metaphysics, continental theory, and social realism.

Focused on political ontology and cultural critique.

Weaknesses:

Still evolving; works mostly in academic niches.

Limited public articulation or mainstream engagement.

Critique:

Strom represents the cutting edge of a new generation of meta-theorists: critical, processual, and socially engaged. The challenge is turning dense theory into accessible praxis.

11. Bobby Azarian – Poetic Meta-Naturalism

Strengths:

Builds bridges between complexity science and spiritual wonder without appealing to the supernatural.

Engages a public audience with an inspiring evolutionary narrative.

Weaknesses:

Risk of romanticizing science or overextending from metaphor into metaphysics.

The term “poetic” can mask unresolved philosophical commitments.

Critique:

Azarian's approach is fresh and media-savvy, but its epistemic rigor remains in question. Is it a truly new ontology or a well-marketed rebranding of naturalism?

12. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens – Exo Studies

Strengths:

Boldly includes anomalous phenomena within a rigorous integrative methodology.

Challenges the epistemic limits of conventional science and spirituality.

Weaknesses:

High risk of credulity if methodological pluralism lacks critical filters.

UFOlogy and exo-discourse remain fringe in academia.

Critique:

Exo Studies stretches the AQAL model into territory Wilber never seriously confronted. But without firm epistemological standards, it may replicate the very metaphysical inflation it seeks to transcend.

Final Assessment: Toward a Post-Integral Pluralism

What emerges from this evaluation is a landscape no longer defined by a single unifying vision (à la Wilber) but by a dynamic plurality of partial integrations. These frameworks vary in their:

• epistemic caution (Henriques, Edwards) vs. spiritual ambition (Temple, Wilber),
• cultural immediacy (Metamodernism, Azarian) vs. systemic rigor (Bhaskar, Henriques),
• academic rigor (Strom, Bhaskar) vs. mythic appeal (Temple, Johnston),
• and in their treatment of ontology—from critical realism to non-dual mysticism.

This pluralism is not a weakness but a sign of intellectual maturity. There is no longer one “Integral Theory” but a vibrant ecosystem of meta-theoretical discourse. The challenge now is dialogical navigation, not dogmatic convergence.

Each framework reviewed here offers a partial lens—what's needed is a meta-conversation that holds them all accountable to both the real and the true, the empirical and the ethical, the grounded and the visionary.

NOTES

[1] These schools are discussed in the "Varieties of Integral" course led by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens for Meta Integral Academy between June 16 and October 5th.

[2] David J. Temple is the pen-name of Marc Gafni and Zak Stein.

[3] Hanzi Freinacht is the pen-name of Emil Ejner Friis and Daniel Görtz.