1. Here is just one relevant quote from "Integral Psychology" (pages 72-73) which amply illustrates Ken's identification of integration with multi-differentiation.
"What is required then in extremely bold generalizations, is to take the enduring truths of the perennial traditions (namely, the Great Nest of Being), and combine that with the good news of modernity (namely, the differentiation of the value spheres), which means that each and every level of the Great Chain is differentiated into at least four dimensions: subjective or intentional, objective or behavioral, intersubjective or cultural, and interobjective or social-each with its own independent validity claims and equally honored forms of truth, from science to aesthetics to morals, as suggested in figure 6 (and simplified in fig. 7). This would take the best of ancient wisdom and integrate it with the best of modernity, while avoiding the downside of the ancient outlook (its lack of differentiation, pluralism, and contextualism) and the downside of modernity (its catastrophic collapse into fIatland).
And that marriage would allow us to move forward to the bright promise of a constructive postmodernity: the integration of art, morals, and science, at every level of the extraordinary spectrum of consciousness, body to mind to soul to spirit. That integration, I am suggesting, would involve the very best of premodernity (which was all-level), the best of modernity (which was all-quadrant), and the best of postmodernity (which, as we will see, involves their integration)`--"all-level, all-quadrant."
So Ken stresses the need to combine the Great Nest of Meaning with the good news of modernity (which he himself identifies in terms of the differentiation of the four quadrants). He then says "This would take the best of ancient wisdom and integrate it with the best of modernity", but quite clearly - in relation to his previous comments - this should be more correctly expressed as "This would take the best of ancient wisdom and differentiate it with the best of modernity".
He then reiterates this reduced notion of integration (where it is directly identified with multi-differentiation) by finishing
"That integration, I am suggesting, would involve the very best of premodernity (which was all-level), the best of modernity (which was all-quadrant), and the best of postmodernity (which, as we will see, involves their integration) -- "all-level, all-quadrant."
Once again integration is not multi-differentiation. So it is not enough to differentiate relatively discrete stages of development (all-level) and combine them with (relatively) discrete quadrant notions (all-quadrant). Indeed strictly speaking, from an integral perspective development entails a no-level, no-quadrant approach. In other words integration is fundamentally a nondual process, so that the very task of a dynamic integrated approach is to show the limitations of dualistic understanding as a means of establishing the true interdependence of development variables. This is a necessary prerequisite step in moving to embrace the spiritual nondual experience.
Of course a comprehensive approach - which I term radial - would entail both differentiated and integrated aspects that are properly harmonised with each other i.e. be both all-level, all quadrant and no-level no-quadrant simultaneously.