11. Though I have not mentioned it in the main text for a more complete approach to integration we need to extend the four quadrants to an eight sectoral approach.
In geometric terms these would be represented through drawing horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines (equidistant from horizontal and vertical) through the centre of the circle to the circumference thus giving us eight sectors of equal area.
These geometrical notions of centre point, circle and lines are then given their appropriate holistic mathematical interpretations.
So the first task in mystical integration is the reconciliation of the horizontal (interior, exterior) polarities. This leads to the clear understanding that in dynamic terms inclusion always implies exclusion and exclusion implies inclusion.
The next task is the reconciliation of vertical (whole, part) polarities. This lead to the clear understanding that holarchy (increasing collective wholeness) always dynamically implies partarchy (decreasing part uniqueness); likewise partarchy in dynamic terms always implies holarchy.
The great problem with asymmetrical notions of holarchy is that lower partness is predefined in one-way terms as part of a higher holon. However the relationship of part to whole (and whole to part) is two way so that equally in asymmetrical terms the higher whole must be pre-defined to establish the identity of each part. Thus development is not just a journey towards a more collective whole identity (holism); equally it is a journey towards a more unique part identity (partism).
Of course in dynamic bi-directional terms, holarchy and partarchy (and partarchy and holarchy) are necessarily complementary and interdependent.
The third task is the reconciliation of diagonal (transcendent, immanent) polarities.
This could equally be described as the simultaneous reconciliation of both horizontal and vertical polarities. So transcendence always implies immanence and immanence always implies transcendence in such diagonal terms.
So development is not just a growth in transcendence; it is equally a growth in immanence (and these two aspects are complementary).
So to characterise all development in terms of holarchies of transcendence and inclusion is extremely one-sided and unbalanced from a dynamic perspective.
Development in fact entails both holarchies and partachies; transcendence and immanence and inclusion and exclusion.
So instead of one asymmetrical interpretation we have eight (all with an equal partial validity).
However integration is then dynamically symmetrical when we pair opposite asymmetrical interpretations in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms.