There are many different schools within Madhyamaka. Generally it is divided into shentong and rangtong. Wilber is much more on the shentong side and I prefer the rangtong.* See the Batchelor thread and its references for that exploration. Therein I explore what I think of as the more metaphysicial view of the shentongs and how that applies to the 'absolute' side of Wilber's work.
* Actually I'm a pOOOntongpa, my own version.
Then I posted this, from Integral Options on the Lingam's semiotics paper:
"What I am claiming is that the metaphysics upon which much of the spiritual element in integral theory is little more than intelligent design dressed in New Age clothing. And in that respect, Wilber's 'integral semiotics' is simply another defense of that paradigm."
In that post he references D.G. Anderson's response to the paper. From that response:
"I find such categories as the possible, the emergent, and the novel to be of particular use; these are not yet accounted for here, insofar as the 'Kosmic Address' described above concerns posited phenomena, the already realized, and not those presently articulating processes that are only now becoming."
David replied: "Intelligent Design posits a personal God who rules over the universe. Integral Theory posits a non-personal evolutionary gradient. There is a big difference."
I replied: Not really. The morphogenetic gradient as involutionary given is of the same type of metaphysics and not necessary at all in postmetaphysics.
And 'integral theory,' like Madhyamaka, is not all of the same kind. When you reference kennilingus please be specific, as it alone does not encompass all of integral theory. I think the last couple of ITCs make it clear that the field is far more expansive than kennilingus. And that the latter is no longer the leading edge of the field.
Also see this thread where we explored the notion of involutionary givens.