Hi Gene, Great work!! That's exactly the type of thing that should be done with the suggestions offered in this paper. As I said in some of my previous posts: the paper offers great examples, and there are clearly analogous applications. I can imagine versions for middle and high-school as well. Moreover, I can imagine aligning these ...

Gene: I fear you may have missed the thrust of my overall critique. But what you've said may drive my point home. You are right: the espoused scope of the paper is important to bear in mind. This is Balder's point in his post above. And as I said in response: if the paper had more explicitly limited its scope I'd have had fewer problems. So my ...

Just some more thoughts to try to keep the thread going. In response to Gene and David: Great! Of course! The paper is a model. What it shows us can be ''translated'' to various contexts. As I noted in my first post: it offers examples, and there are clearly analogous applications. So I like what you've drawn from it. I like where you want to ...

Just wanted to say ''yup'' to both of you. Balder in particular made my case clearer. I am kind of only suggesting that the paper would perhaps better bear its original title (as reveled in the first foot note, which I just noticed): ''Integral by design: how Integral Theory informs teaching learning and curriculum in a graduate program.'' If ...

Exciting to see some real peer reviewed publishable integral theorizing! And in the hopes of continuing to raise the bar I'll skip over the compliments: e.g. the ambitiousness and clarity of the vision laid out; the impressive application of the model in real world contexts; the rigorous use of Wilber's work; etc. I'll just get right into some ...

Honest to god quetsion. Is this abuse?