Choose your verson of 'integral' carefully

Continuing from this post:

 

If there is fusion-differentiation-integration at every 'level,' the question becomes what an 'integral' level looks like if the formal rational level has been properly integrated. If it has gone into dissociation without said integration, and if that same dissociation has tainted every so-called postformal level thereafter, then are they actually postformal? Another question is if the same sort of formal, monofractal logic is used in constructing hierarchical models, are they really looking at postformal levels or just more complicated yet lateral formal extensions?

Now Wilber did indeed note the dignities of postmodernity, one of which was rightly questioning formal premises. Hence he tried to include and integrate its insights. Yet he also said his version of the integral transcended it. But he uses the same formal math and logic of the MHC's transcend-and-include Hegelian logic. The postmodernist version of complexity shows how that sort of logic is still caught in modern assumptions.

All of which points to what I think is the actual postformal, so-called 2nd tier breakthrough into integral-aperspectival awareness of a Gebser or Morin, etc. One kind of complexity gets us there, one is putting lipstick on the modern pig. One supports the actually emerging collaborative commons, the other is still caught in conscious capitalism at best. We see the incipient glimmerings of the former in Sanders, and the oligarchic continuation in Clinton. I guess you need to choose your version of 'integral' carefully as well, based as it is on a certain kind of complexity.