De drie principes zijn volgens de transpersoonlijke filsofoof Ken Wilber in zijn laatste bericht;
"Principle 1:
Nonexclusion — “Everyone is right”
Nonexclusion means that we can accept the
valid truth claims (i.e., the truth claims that pass the validity
tests for their own paradigms in their own fields, whether
in hermeneutics, spirituality, science, etc.) insofar as they make
statements about the existence of their own enacted and disclosed phenomena,
but not when they make statements about the existence of phenomena enacted by
other paradigms. That is, oneparadigm can competently
pass judgments within its own worldspace, but not on those
spaces enacted (and only seen) by other paradigms.
Principle 2: Enfoldment
— “Some are more right than others”
Everybody can be right because some views are
more right than others. None are wrong; some are simply more inclusive, more
encompassing, more holistic, more integrative, more depthed, more
transcending-and-including—endlessly. But the fact that molecules are more
inclusive than atoms does not mean that we can get rid of atoms, or that atoms
can be jettisoned, or that atoms have no real truths to offer just as they are.
To be a partial truth is still to be a truth.
The nonexclusion principle goes a long way in helping us to
integrate a plurality or multiplicity of paradigms (and thus develop a
metatheory that is true to the phenomena enacted by the social practices of an
integral methodological pluralism). But even within nonexclusion, numerous
conflicts arise, and how to integrate those becomes a pressing issue. This is
where the second integrative principle, that of unfoldment, can be of help.
Principle 3: Enactment —
“If you want to know this, do that”
Most “paradigm clashes” are usually deemed
“incommensurable”—meaning there is no way for the two paradigms to fit
together—but this is so only because people focus on the phenomena, not the
practices. But if we realize that phenomena are enacted, brought forth, and
disclosed by practices, then we realize that what appeared to be “conflicting
phenomena” or experiences are simply different (and fully compatible)
experiences brought forth by different practices. Adopt the different
practices, and you will see the same phenomena that the adherents of the
supposedly “incommensurable” paradigm are seeing. Hence, the
“incommensurability” is not insurmountable, or even a significant barrier, to any
sort of integral embrace."