5. Ken's pre/trans fallacy makes little sense from a dynamic integral perspective, where, in experiential terms, transpersonal always entails the interaction with prepersonal, and prepersonal with transpersonal respectively.
This is the same recognition that in experience the transcendent aspect is dynamically related to the immanent and the immanent to the transcendent respectively.
The task then is to distinguish confused from more mature integral notions of this dynamic relationship.
In terms of the differentiation of experience, Ken's approach - based on a discrete interpretation of stages - does have validity. However - as we have seen - even here, it is a partial interpretation as it based solely on the transcendent direction of development (where movement is from pre to trans notions). However it could equally be based on the immanent direction (where it is reversed from trans to pre).
Once we recognise that every level of development entails a unique configuration of both differentiation and integration, then a distinctive pre/trans fallacy is associated in each case.
So again Ken's own approach represents just one partial interpretation based on the understanding of the middle level of the Spectrum.