Why AQAL (kennilingus) is not academically acceptable

This previous post applies to kennilingus,* from Edwards' article in Integral Review 9:2, "Towards an integral meta-studies: describing and transcending boundaries in the development of big picture science."

 "Wilber and many other metatheoreists rely on traditional scholarship methods of essentially reading a broad, but ideosyncratic, selection of writings and research and then making of it what they will according to their own assumptions and predilections. This traditional approach is not adequate if metathetical research is to be taken seriously as a form of social science research. Metatheorising can and should be done as a rigorous and methodical research activity and that AQAL metatheory needs to participate in this process if it is to be truly grounded in the scientific tradition. Until that time, AQAL metatheory will remain the visionary creation of one thinker and corroborating evidence for its framework of quadrants, levels, lines, types and states will remain anecdotal at best. This is, perhaps, the most forceful reason for the lack of acceptance for metatheorising, and particularly for AQAL metatheory, across mainstream higher education institutions and their constitutive disciplines" (183).

* Of course it applies to me as well, but I ain't trying for academic acceptance. I prefer the guerrilla agent provocateur approach on the online alleys and byways, where memes are culturally inculcated, not in ivory towers.