One of the central arguments of post-metaphysical integral philosophy is that there is not one world but rather worlds (lifeworlds) brought forth by subjects in relationship who undertake social practices. As a result much of the conflict in discourse/life involves two people both correct in their relative positions–but unable to see each other positions–and therefore assuming their position-viewpoint to be true for all of reality (what is called The Myth of the Given). On this point, Wilber:
The point is simply that, in principle, cross-paradigmatic judgments are possible because there is not simply one world against which paradigms compete for dominance, a kind of king-of-the-hill battle that tosses all losers on the garbage dump, because there are no losers. There is not one world over which all paradigms are fighting for supremacy, but many worlds brought forth by different paradigms, worlds that can be eye-witnessed by the same subjects if they submit to the discipline of the paradigms required to enact those worlds. And while “the” world cannot contain many worlds, awareness can. And because we already know that are in fact many worlds, it follows that we already are standing in an awareness that has cross-paradigmatic capacity, a capacity that can eventuate in metatheoretical overview, such as the one offered by AQAL.6
These three regulative principles–nonexclusion, enfoldment, enactment–are principles that were reverse engineered, if you will, from the fact that numerous different and seemingly “conflicting” paradigms are already being competently practiced all over the world; and thus the question is not, and never has been, which is right and which is wrong, but how can all of them already be arising in a Kosmos? These three principles are some of the items that need to be already operating in the universe in order for so many paradigms to already be arising, and the only really interesting question is how can all of those extraordinary practices already be arising in any universe?
In the footnote to #6, KW further comments:
It is not necessary that the horizons of different paradigms are reproduced identically in all subjects undergoing the discipline, only that the subjects themselves can agree on certain broad similarities, a topic that is central to Excerpt C, subheading “A History of We’s.”
In fact, as Ricoeur points out what is communicated publicly in conversation & dialogue is never my inner personal experience but rather the public meaning of that experience. So even Wilber’s point is that you and don’t have to have the exact same experience/worldspace when reading his quotation (though the three strands still apply–take up the practice, i.e. read the thing, the event/meaning is disclosed [if you get it], and whether you get it is checked via discourse with the knowledge community]. All that has to happen is we have a more or less similar (mutually recognizably so) sets of intuitions/experiences regarding the above.
And the reason that this not absolutely identical but roughly overlapping sets of horizons is all that is necessary is because the world is not pre-set. Returning to the earlier quotation, there is not “the/one world.”
If philosophy is a meditation on being-in-the-world, I find this attitude one of grace. There is a deep relaxation involved in: A)seeing that much of what we initially term as conflict is really underneath sign of relative health (people are clueing in to their own experience, already in practice, if unconscious in large measure) which means we don’t have to enforce some one truth on all beings and B)not needing to have the “exact same experience” and fretting over the exact nature of the exact nature but rather focusing more space and attention to learn to articulate clearly and listen attentively and find creative ways of interacting with both our similar (roughly) worldspaces and the differences, different qualities/nuances we each feel/experience within them.
