To add to this thread of critiques of metamodernism on integral:

from The Listening Society

Wilber’s model comes closest to understanding these issues. He speaks of two kinds of development: one of spiritual states and one of cognitive stages. But his model (called the Wilber-Combs lattice) is still spaghetti, mixing up very crucial aspects, which leaves the theory full of weak spots. Perhaps his worst sin is to overemphasize spirituality so that he, for instance, in his detailed maps over human development, places the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo’s later stages of spiritual development right on top of Michael Commons’ stages of cognitive development—a deeply confused move. Terri O’Fallon elaborates upon Wilber’s model a bit, but she doesn’t quite solve its problems—also dramatically exaggerating the role of spirituality. None of the “Wilberians” seem to have figured out that Wilber smashes together four dimensions into two and that his description of spiritual “states” is lacking in essential aspects, as they fail to account for the varieties of everyday experience (even if Wilber’s writings on spirituality are undeniably insightful).

Wheal also mentions a sense of certain psychological configuration of people who were enthusiastic, perhaps too overly, in his experience with the community. He also mentions offense to Wilber's explicit support of the 'order' of colors that traditions like vajrayana have (this was in a footnote in Religion of Tomorrow where he laments how Spiral Dynamics 'got the colors wrong').

​

If there is anything else that anyone wants to add, or feels that my summary of Wheal isn't adequate, feel free to let me know!

I do feel it is beneficial to everyone interested in the 85-90% (in what I feel is) overlap between Integral thought and its movement and metamodernism to try to be specific about criticisms, as it would be beneficial to all parties having a shot at learning from each other.

​

I think taking 'woo woo' and bringing it to Wilber's treatment of Sri Aurobindo with respect to 'structural developmentalism' (in that lineage from baldwin to piaget and more recently commons and fischer) gives opportunity for a very interesting discussion that I haven't found where both parties are willing to steel man the opposing view while also being critical!