6. Ken consistently defines his holarchies in terms of transcendence and inclusion.
However inclusion must dynamically be balanced by exclusion. So we can equally define holarchies in terms of transcendence and exclusion.
However - as mentioned when dealing with the pre/trans fallacy - development is equally about immanence (as well as transcendence) so we could equally define holarchies in terms of immanence and inclusion and immanence and exclusion respectively.
Finally however, the relation between whole and part is itself bi-directional so every holarchy - where development is viewed in terms of the progressive movement to more collective wholes - is balanced by a corresponding partarchy (where development is viewed in terms of the progressive movement to more unique parts).
So in a comprehensive eight-sectoral approach we have eight (linear) asymmetrical interpretations which serve to properly differentiate experience.
Then, because of the circular complementarity of opposite interpretations (i.e. inclusion and exclusion, transcendence and immanence and holarchy and partarchy)
we can achieve dynamic integration.