17. Though I have concentrated mainly in this article on the nature of an integral - as opposed to a differentiated - approach, any comprehensive approach must entail both aspects.
Now I refer to this approach - where differentiated and integral aspects are both successfully incorporated - as a radial interpretation.
In a radial context there would of course be a place for the superbly intelligent and detailed work that Ken Wilber has contributed to development.
However without proper recognition of the uniquely distinctive features of the differentiated and integrated aspects of development respectively, any attempted radial approach will be significantly reduced to just one aspect. And in Ken's case the bias is certainly towards differentiation (rather than consistent integration).
The very problem with our culture is that integration is generally defined in a manner where it is not properly distinguished from differentiation.
Thus what I refer to as a radial approach would in popular understanding be referred to as an integral approach. And I am sure that Ken would maintain that his "integral" approach refers to the radial approach (as I define it).
However, as we have seen, if we do not properly distinguish the integral aspect and the uniquely distinct intellectual translation required to do it justice, then inevitably in any comprehensive (radial) approach, the integral will be reduced to the differentiated aspect of development.
The model will then be deeply inconsistent from an overall perspective.