Integral Epistemological Pluralism and the Nature-Spirit Problem

From the Parallax Gap to IACT Praxis

Feb 10, 2026

Abstract

Dylan Shaul’s “From Nature to Spirit in Hegel’s Encyclopedia” offers one of the most lucid interventions in contemporary Hegel scholarship, reconstructing the debate between Pippin, Žižek, and Johnston and proposing the animal organism’s “undecidable decision” as the pivot of the Nature-Spirit transition. This essay argues that the entire debate — for all its brilliance — cannot deliver what it promises. It lacks a meta-theoretical architecture capable of holding the irreducible perspectives each thinker identifies, and it lacks a functional praxis capable of making the philosophical insight livable. I propose Integral Epistemological Pluralism (IEP) as the framework that transforms Žižek’s parallax gap from a tragic conclusion into a starting point, drawing on Wilber’s AQAL and Habermas’s post-metaphysical philosophy. Žižek’s absolute negativity is a genuine philosophical achievement — but it is an incomplete one, trapped in emptiness as lack, unable to reach the nondual ground where freedom and fullness are inseparable. This ground is available within the contemplative depths of traditions Žižek himself engages, including Christianity — yet his Lacanian commitments prevent him from arriving where the mystics and contemplatives do. Habermas offers the epistemological rigor Žižek lacks but has no access to this territory either. I then show that Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACT) provides the functional praxis the debate is missing, and propose Integral Awareness and Commitment Training (IACT) — grounded in Enactive Fallibilism (Peirce + Varela) — as the framework that operationalizes IEP at the level of daily life. The decision to become human is not made once, at the dawn of Spirit. It is made moment to moment and one day at a time.

Tags: Hegel & Continental: Hegel, Žižek, Pippin, Johnston, Parallax Gap, Nature-Spirit Problem, Nondual Integral Theory: AQAL, Integral Theory, Integral Facticity, Integral Epistemological Pluralism, Freedom and Fullness, Growing Up, Cleaning Up, Showing Up, Waking Up Contemplative: Five Ranks, Tōzan Ryōkai, Genpo Roshi, Big Mind, Bodhisattva Vow, States and Traits Contextual Behavioral Science: ACT, Acceptance and Commitment Training, Hexaflex, Psychological Flexibility, Committed Action, IACT, Integral Awareness and Commitment Training, Prosocial Critical Theory & Epistemology: Habermas, Communicative Action, Post-Metaphysical, Fallibilism, Enactive Fallibilism, Praxis Enactivism & Pragmatism: Varela, Enactivism, Peirce, Contextual Behavioral Science Interlocutors: Wilber, Philosophy Portal

Dylan Shaul’s recent article “From Nature to Spirit in Hegel’s Encyclopedia: Sex, Death, and Quantum Physics” (Crisis & Critique, Vol. 12/1) is one of the most lucid interventions in contemporary Hegel scholarship I’ve encountered. I first came across Shaul’s work through his appearance on Christopher Satoor’s podcast, and then had the opportunity to follow his month-long seminar at Cadell Last’s Philosophy Portal, where his command of the Hegel-Lacan-Žižek terrain was immediately apparent. In the article under discussion, Shaul reconstructs the debate between Robert Pippin’s neo-pragmatic naturalism and Slavoj Žižek’s speculative materialism, adjudicates the internal dispute between Žižek and Adrian Johnston over whether quantum physics or neuroscience best accounts for the emergence of Spirit from Nature, and then offers his own compelling alternative: the transition happens through the animal organism’s “undecidable decision” (Entschluss) to break with the deadlock between sex and death and become human — become Spirit.

It is a genuinely illuminating reading of Hegel. And it is, I will argue, almost perfect. What it lacks — what the entire conversation lacks — is both a meta-theoretical architecture capable of holding what all these thinkers are reaching for, and a functional praxis that makes the philosophical insight testable and truly post-metaphysical.

The core philosophical proposal of this essay is what I am calling Integral Epistemological Pluralism (IEP): the recognition that multiple irreducible ways of knowing — phenomenological, empirical, hermeneutic, systemic, contemplative — each possess their own validity conditions that cannot be collapsed into one another, and that navigating across these irreducible epistemologies is not a theoretical synthesis but an embodied praxis. IEP is what Žižek’s parallax gap becomes when you stop treating irreducibility as a tragic ontological conclusion and start treating it as an epistemological starting point. It is what Wilber’s quadrants and methodological zones become when read through Habermas’s facticity and fallibilism: not a God’s-eye map of everything, but a provisional, revisable framework for moving across genuinely plural ways of knowing without collapsing them into one.

I want to show that Integral Awareness and Commitment Training (IACT) operationalizes IEP at the level of daily praxis, and that the resources for this have been available for decades in the work of Ken Wilber and Jürgen Habermas, supplemented by the contextual-functional psychology of Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACT) as developed by Steven Hayes and extended to group-level processes through Prosocial (Atkins, Wilson, and Hayes 2019).

I. The Terrain: What Each Position Gets Right

Before arguing that the Nature-Spirit debate requires resources none of its current participants possess, I want to take seriously what each position has achieved. These are not confused thinkers flailing in the dark. They are among the most sophisticated philosophers working today, and the problems they are wrestling with are real. Any framework that claims to complete their work must first demonstrate that it understands it.

Pippin: The Irreducibility of Reasons

Pippin’s neo-pragmatic naturalism makes a genuinely important move. By distinguishing the space of causes from the space of reasons — borrowing from Sellars — Pippin identifies something that any adequate account of the Nature-Spirit transition must preserve: the explanatory irreducibility of normative self-consciousness. When a human being acts for reasons, the explanation of that action cannot be reduced to prior physical causes without losing precisely what makes it a reasoned action. You can give a complete neurological account of what happens in someone’s brain when they decide to keep a promise, and you will have explained nothing about why they kept the promise — the normative commitment, the social expectation, the self-understanding that makes promise-keeping intelligible as a human act.

This is not a trivial insight, and Pippin is right that Hegel shares it. The domain of Spirit — culture, law, art, religion, philosophy, mutual recognition — operates with its own logic that cannot be derived from biology. Pippin is also right that this does not require positing any supernatural entities. Humans are animals who developed certain capacities; the space of reasons is a real domain opened up by those capacities; and philosophy’s task is to understand the normative structure of that domain, not to speculate about the cosmic conditions of its emergence.

Where Pippin falls short — and where Žižek’s critique is justified — is in his refusal to ask how the space of reasons emerged from the space of causes. Pippin treats this as a non-philosophical question, to be answered someday by evolutionary biology and neuroscience. But as Žižek observes, this concession contains an “obscene secret”: if the space of reasons can in principle be fully explained by natural-scientific causes, then its irreducibility is merely provisional — an artifact of our current ignorance rather than an ontological feature of reality. Pippin wants the irreducibility of Spirit without paying the metaphysical price for it. That is an unstable position.

What Pippin preserves that must not be lost: the genuine irreducibility of normative, reason-giving activity to causal explanation. Any framework that collapses this distinction — whether through reductive neuroscience or through a speculative metaphysics that makes Spirit merely a moment in the Idea’s self-development — fails to account for what is distinctively human about human existence.

Žižek: The Ontological Break

Žižek’s speculative materialism addresses precisely the gap Pippin leaves open. If Spirit is genuinely irreducible to Nature, then there must be something about the structure of reality itself that makes this irreducibility possible. Žižek’s answer — drawing on Lacan’s notion of the “non-All” (pas-toute) — is that Nature is constitutively incomplete. Reality does not form a seamless, fully determined whole. There are gaps, inconsistencies, points of ontological indeterminacy that cannot be resolved by adding more information. Subjectivity — Spirit — just is the living manifestation of this incompleteness. The subject is not something added to substance from outside; it is the point where substance fails to coincide with itself.

This is a profound philosophical claim, and it captures something that both Pippin’s deflationary naturalism and traditional metaphysical readings of Hegel miss: the transition from Nature to Spirit involves a genuine break, not a smooth evolutionary gradient. Something happens in that transition that cannot be explained by what came before it. Spirit retroactively constitutes its own conditions of emergence — it is, as Hegel says, what it makes itself to be. Žižek is right that any account which smooths over this break, whether through gradual evolution (Pippin) or through continuous biological emergence (Johnston, at least on Žižek’s reading), risks reducing Spirit back to Nature.

Žižek is also right — and this point is often underappreciated — that this ontological incompleteness has political implications. If reality were fully determined, there would be no room for genuinely transformative political action. Revolution would be impossible; at best we could rearrange existing elements. The “gap” in substance is what makes it possible for subjects to intervene in their world in ways that are not determined by prior conditions. The abyssal act — the groundless decision to create a new form of life — depends on this ontological structure.

Where Žižek falls short is in two related ways. First, his privileging of quantum physics as the paradigmatic illustration of Nature’s incompleteness places the ontological ground of subjectivity at the furthest remove from the actual site of the Nature-Spirit transition. As Johnston points out, quantum mechanics belongs to the earliest, most rudimentary levels of Nature in Hegel’s system — Mechanics or at most Physics — whereas the transition to Spirit happens through the most advanced form of Nature, the animal organism. Quantum indeterminacy may be a necessary condition for the possibility of freedom, but it is not a sufficient account of how Spirit actually emerges from organisms embedded in biological and social worlds. Second, Žižek’s emphasis on the “abyssal” character of the transition — ex nihilo, miraculous, without natural preconditions — leaves him without any account of how organisms actually make the transition. The abyssal act is theoretically dramatic but practically empty. It tells you that a genuine break must occur; it cannot tell you what anyone should do.

What Žižek preserves that must not be lost: the insistence on a genuine ontological break between Nature and Spirit, the recognition that reality is constitutively incomplete, and the political stakes of maintaining this break against both naturalist reductionism and idealist closure.

Johnston: The Embodied Subject

Johnston’s intervention is the most underappreciated of the three, and in some ways the most convergent with the framework I will propose. Johnston shares Žižek’s commitment to speculative materialism and to the Hegel-Lacan synthesis, but he insists that the emergence of Spirit from Nature must be grounded in the concrete biology of the animal organism — specifically, in the self-organizing, self-modifying feedback structures of the human brain and nervous system.

Johnston’s appeal to “strong emergentism” captures a genuine philosophical insight. Emergent properties are real: the wetness of water cannot be found in individual H₂O molecules; the purposive behavior of organisms cannot be derived from the chemistry of their constituent molecules; and the normative self-consciousness of human beings cannot be reduced to the firing of individual neurons. At each level of complexity, genuinely novel properties arise that are irreducible to their lower-level constituents, even though they depend on those constituents for their material realization. Johnston argues that this is how Hegel himself thinks about the transition: Spirit is a genuinely novel emergent property of sufficiently complex biological organization, not a descent from the Absolute Idea.

More importantly for my purposes, Johnston has increasingly drawn on 4E cognitive science — the embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended framework — to ground his account of the subject. This is where Johnston converges most significantly with the enactivist tradition of Francisco Varela. For Varela, cognition is not computation performed on internal representations; it is the organism’s active, embodied engagement with its environment, through which both organism and environment are mutually constituted. The subject does not emerge from a gap in Being; it emerges from the organism’s structural coupling with its world — a coupling that is always already embodied, always already embedded in an environment, always already enacted through perception and action, and always already extended through tools, language, and social practices.

Johnston is right to push Žižek toward this territory. The 4E framework provides what quantum physics cannot: a concrete, empirically grounded account of how organisms actually develop the capacities that constitute subjectivity. Neuroplasticity — the brain’s capacity to reshape itself through experience — gives a non-reductive materialist account of how biological structures can give rise to genuinely novel capacities without those capacities being determined in advance by their biological substrate.

Where Johnston falls short — and where Žižek’s caution is warranted — is in the risk of making the transition from Nature to Spirit too continuous. If Spirit is “just” an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural organization, then the break between Nature and Spirit is a matter of degree rather than kind. Johnston insists this is not the case — strong emergence preserves genuine novelty — but the explanatory weight of his account falls on biological processes that are themselves natural. The danger is a sophisticated naturalism that, for all its talk of emergence, still locates Spirit within Nature rather than recognizing that Spirit constitutes a genuinely new domain.

What Johnston preserves that must not be lost: the insistence that any account of the Nature-Spirit transition must pass through the actual biology of the living organism, the convergence with 4E cognitive science and enactivism, and the recognition that subjectivity is embodied, not merely logical or speculative.

Shaul: The Undecidable Decision

Shaul’s contribution is to show that none of these three positions — Pippin’s deflationary naturalism, Žižek’s quantum-ontological speculation, Johnston’s neuroscientific emergentism — tracks what Hegel himself actually argues at the end of the Philosophy of Nature. The transition from Nature to Spirit happens through the animal organism’s encounter with the deadlock between the sex-drive and the death-drive.

The sex-drive impels the organism to externalize itself into another — but the other is simply another animal, and the same process repeats. The death-drive impels the organism to negate its own life — but this simply destroys the organism, and no exit is achieved. The two drives are locked in what Hegel calls the “bad infinite” (schlechte Unendlichkeit): the endless alternation of birth and death, generation after generation, going nowhere. Neither drive can resolve the deadlock on its own. Nature is trapped within its own circle.

Shaul’s key move is to read the transition from Nature to Spirit on analogy with the prior transition from Logic to Nature, drawing on the work of Rebecca Comay and Frank Ruda on the role of “decision” (Entschluss) in Hegel. Just as the Absolute Idea, trapped within the closed circle of pure thinking, makes an undecidable decision to release itself into the externality of space and time, so too the animal organism, trapped within the closed circle of natural repetition, makes an undecidable decision to break with Nature and become Spirit. This decision is “undecidable” in the precise sense that no established rules, norms, or prior determinations can dictate it — it is genuinely free, genuinely novel, and genuinely transformative.

This is a powerful reading, and it corrects Žižek’s tendency to bypass the biological specificity of the transition in favor of quantum-cosmological speculation. Shaul shows that you do not need to go below Nature (to quantum physics) or around Nature (to the brain alone) to account for Spirit’s emergence. You need to attend to what Hegel says happens at the end of Nature: the organism encounters a deadlock from which it cannot escape through natural means, and it decides — abyssally, undecidably — to become something more.

What Shaul preserves that must not be lost: fidelity to Hegel’s own text, the structural analogy between the Logic-Nature and Nature-Spirit transitions, and the concept of the undecidable decision as the pivot point of the transition.

I affirm all four of these achievements. Any framework that claims to go beyond them must incorporate what each gets right: Pippin’s irreducibility of reasons, Žižek’s ontological break and its political stakes, Johnston’s embodied and enacted subject, and Shaul’s undecidable decision grounded in the organism’s encounter with deadlock. The question is whether there is a framework that can hold all four without the limitations each carries on its own.

II. The Regression Problem: Post-Metaphysical Claims, Pre-Metaphysical Moves

I have argued that each position achieves something genuine. But each also carries a limitation that, I want to suggest, stems from the same structural source: the absence of both a meta-theoretical architecture adequate to the complexity of what is being described, and a functional praxis capable of operationalizing the philosophical insight. Before introducing that architecture and praxis, however, I need to identify the specific way in which Shaul’s reading — for all its virtues — risks undermining its own post-metaphysical aspirations.

The problem is not unique to Shaul. It runs through the entire speculative materialist tradition, and it takes a specific form: the attribution of subjective agency to trans-subjective principles.

Shaul’s argument, having redirected the debate away from Žižek’s quantum metaphysics and Johnston’s neuroscientific emergentism, nevertheless re-introduces a robustly metaphysical architecture through his reading of the Encyclopedia system. The Absolute Idea “decides” to release itself into Nature. Nature’s “goal” is to destroy itself like a phoenix. The Idea is “driven toward novelty” for the sake of “enjoyment” (Genuß/jouissance). The whole circular self-movement of Logic-Nature-Spirit culminates in the Absolute Idea “enjoying itself as Absolute Spirit.” The entire trajectory from Logic through Nature to Spirit — and back again — is narrated as the Idea’s own self-movement, self-alienation, and self-recovery.

Now, one might object that this is simply Hegel’s own language, and that Shaul is faithfully reconstructing Hegel’s position rather than endorsing it uncritically. Fair enough. But Shaul does endorse it. He argues that this reading is superior to both Pippin’s deflationary naturalism and Žižek’s quantum-ontological speculation. He takes the Absolute Idea’s “drive toward novelty” and “enjoyment” as genuine philosophical explanations, not merely as Hegel’s idiosyncratic vocabulary for something that could be cashed out in more modest terms. And he concludes by comparing the animal’s undecidable decision to Žižek’s “abyssal act” as “both the groundless ground of the material world, and as the political creation of a new form of life” — language that presupposes the very metaphysical architecture it claims to be working within.

This matters because it affects what the framework can actually do. If the Absolute Idea is the true agent of the Nature-Spirit transition — if the organism’s “decision” is really the Idea’s own self-movement working itself out through the organism — then the individual organism is not the genuine site of agency. It is a vehicle for something larger. The undecidable decision turns out to be decided after all, by the Idea’s own immanent logic. And the political implications follow: genuine transformation is not something agents achieve through praxis and coordination, but something that happens to agents when the Idea reaches the appropriate point in its self-development.

Habermas identified this problem decades ago in his critique of the philosophy of the subject — from Hegel through Heidegger. Any framework which grounds intersubjectivity in a single macro-subject (Spirit, Dasein, absolute negativity) inevitably collapses the plurality of validity claims into a monological structure. The diversity of perspectives — objective truth, normative rightness, subjective authenticity — is subsumed under one master logic. Communicative action theory replaces the philosophy of the subject with the intersubjective coordination of these three validity claims, each of which is irreducible to the others and each of which can be challenged, revised, or redeemed through ongoing discourse. This is genuinely post-metaphysical because it is procedural and fallibilist: no cosmic Idea underwrites the process.

But I want to be precise about the nature of the regression, because it is not a simple error. Shaul, Žižek, and Johnston are all trying to preserve something that Pippin’s deflationary naturalism sacrifices: the ontological significance of the Nature-Spirit transition. They are right that something real happens when organisms become subjects — something that cannot be captured by saying “well, these particular animals happened to develop certain reasoning capacities.” The question is whether preserving ontological significance requires re-introducing a cosmic subject — the Absolute Idea — as the hidden agent of the transition. I will argue that it does not. What it requires is an architecture that can hold ontological depth without ontological agency — that can affirm the reality and irreducibility of Spirit without attributing Spirit’s emergence to a purposive Idea driving the process from behind.

Žižek himself senses this problem when he insists on “materialism without matter” and on the Lacanian dictum that “the big Other does not exist.” His entire project can be read as an attempt to preserve ontological depth (absolute negativity, the gap in Being, the constitutive incompleteness of substance) while refusing any positive metaphysical principle that would serve as the ground or guarantor of the process. But the tension between this refusal and his actual philosophical praxis — in which absolute negativity functions as precisely such a ground — is one that he has never fully resolved. Shaul inherits this tension and, by returning to the Encyclopedia system with its circular self-movement of the Idea, makes it more rather than less acute.

The resources for resolving this tension, I will now argue, lie outside the Hegel-Lacan corridor entirely.

III. The Deadlock in Praxis: ACT and the Bad Infinite

Before turning to the meta-theoretical resources I believe are needed, I want to pause on the structural parallel between Shaul’s philosophical argument and a finding in contemporary clinical psychology that none of the participants in this debate appear to know about.

In Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACT), the therapeutic process often begins with what is called “creative hopelessness” — the moment where the client recognizes that their existing strategies for escaping suffering are themselves perpetuating the suffering. The person caught in addiction discovers that every strategy of avoidance (substance use, isolation, rigid self-narratives) temporarily relieves the pain but deepens the deadlock. The person fused with anxious thoughts discovers that every attempt to suppress or control the thoughts amplifies them. The depressed person discovers that withdrawal from valued activity, meant to conserve depleted energy, produces the very depletion it was meant to address. The strategies are locked in a “bad infinite” — an endless repetition that goes nowhere.

This is structurally identical to what Shaul describes as the animal organism’s encounter with the sex-death deadlock. The sex-drive and the death-drive are mutually requiring and mutually contradicting: each needs the other and each undermines the other, and their alternation produces an indefinite sequence of finite generations without transformation. No exit is available within the terms of the deadlock itself.

The “undecidable decision” in ACT — and this is the crucial point — is the pivot toward psychological flexibility: the choice to stop struggling against experience and instead turn toward valued living. This choice cannot be derived from the prior pattern. It is not a logical consequence of the deadlock. It is genuinely novel, in the precise sense that Shaul means when he says the animal’s decision to become Spirit cannot be determined by any prior natural conditions. And yet — and this is what distinguishes the ACT framework from the Hegel-Lacan tradition — this decision is not miraculous, not abyssal, not ex nihilo. It is enacted. It is cultivated through specific processes (defusion, acceptance, self-as-context, present moment contact, values clarification, committed action). It is repeatable. And it is empirically studied across thousands of clinical trials and process-based intervention studies.

The existence of this parallel suggests that the Nature-Spirit problem is not merely a historical curiosity in Hegel scholarship. It is a live question with practical stakes: How do organisms trapped in self-perpetuating deadlocks break free? And the answer being developed in contextual behavioral science — an answer grounded in empirical research rather than speculative metaphysics — points toward resources that the philosophical debate has not yet considered.

IV. From the Parallax Gap to Integral Epistemological Pluralism

Here is the deeper problem. Žižek, Johnston, and Shaul are all working within the Hegel-Lacan corridor — a brilliant but structurally limited intellectual tradition that operates primarily in what Ken Wilber’s integral theory identifies as the Upper-Left quadrant: the interior of the individual subject. Subjectivity, the gap, absolute negativity, the death-drive, the undecidable decision — these are all descriptions of first-person interior experience, even when they claim ontological or cosmological reach.

Wilber’s AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) framework maps four irreducible dimensions of any phenomenon: interior-individual (Upper Left: subjective experience), exterior-individual (Upper Right: observable behavior and biology), interior-collective (Lower Left: shared meaning, culture, intersubjectivity), and exterior-collective (Lower Right: systems, institutions, social structures). Each quadrant has its own irreducible methodologies — phenomenology, empiricism, hermeneutics, systems theory — that cannot be collapsed into one another.

Žižek’s Parallax View is, I want to suggest, an attempt to get at precisely this insight. The “parallax gap” — “a confrontation of two closely linked perspectives between which no neutral common ground is possible” — describes exactly the irreducibility of perspectives across quadrants. Quantum physics and subjective experience cannot be synthesized into a single view. Neuroscience and psychoanalysis cannot be reduced to one another. Political economy and phenomenology operate with incommensurable logics. Žižek sees all of this clearly.

What he cannot do, given his Lacanian commitments, is hold these perspectives together in a coherent architecture. For Lacan, the big Other does not exist — there is no meta-position from which the whole can be surveyed. Any claim to such a position is imaginary, a fantasy of wholeness. So the parallax gap remains a gap — an irreducible ontological fissure that the subject must endlessly traverse without resolution. The irreducibility of perspectives is treated as a final conclusion, the last word on the structure of reality. There is nowhere to go from here except to repeat the traversal, each time with greater theoretical sophistication. This is the bad infinite at the meta-theoretical level.

Integral Epistemological Pluralism offers a fundamentally different response to the same recognition of irreducibility. IEP agrees with Žižek that no neutral common ground is possible — that the methodologies proper to each quadrant cannot be synthesized into a single meta-methodology, and that any claim to have achieved such a synthesis is indeed a fantasy. But IEP draws a different conclusion. The absence of neutral common ground does not entail that the irreducible perspectives cannot be navigated. A living human being participates in all four quadrants simultaneously. You are always already a subject with interior experience (UL), an organism with measurable biology (UR), a participant in shared cultural meaning (LL), and embedded in institutional and systemic structures (LR). The question is not whether these can be theoretically unified — they cannot — but whether the organism can develop the practical capacity to move across them without collapsing any into the others.

This is what distinguishes IEP from both the parallax gap and from a naive integral synthesis. Žižek says: the perspectives are irreducible, and no meta-position is possible, so the gap is ontologically final. A naive reading of Wilber might say: the quadrants provide the meta-position that integrates everything. IEP says neither. It says: the perspectives are genuinely irreducible (Žižek is right about that), AND they can be held together in praxis by an organism that has developed the flexibility to operate across multiple epistemological domains without requiring a theoretical resolution of their differences. The meta-position is not a view from nowhere — it is the developed capacity to move between views, to hold multiple ways of knowing simultaneously, and to recognize when one is being collapsed into another.

Wilber’s eight methodological zones (inside and outside perspectives on each quadrant) provide the architecture for this pluralism. Each zone has its own validity conditions — its own criteria for what counts as a good claim within that domain. First-person phenomenology has different validity conditions than third-person neuroscience, which has different validity conditions than second-person hermeneutics, which has different validity conditions than systems-theoretic analysis. IEP insists that all of these are genuine ways of knowing, that none reduces to any other, and that the integral practitioner navigates across them through developed capacity — not through theoretical fiat.

When this architecture is read through Habermas’s fallibilism — when every claim within every zone is understood as provisional, revisable, and redeemable only through intersubjective discourse — you get a framework that is genuinely post-metaphysical in a way that neither Žižek’s speculative materialism nor a dogmatic integralism achieves. The quadrants are not a map of the Absolute. They are a provisional, fallible, revisable framework for navigating epistemological plurality. And the Hexaflex, as I will argue in Section VI, is the functional praxis that makes this navigation possible at the level of daily life.

V. Freedom and Fullness: The Missing Distinction

There is a still deeper issue that the entire Žižek-Johnston-Shaul conversation cannot address, because their shared Hegelian framework lacks the conceptual resources to formulate it.

All three thinkers operate with a developmental logic of increasing complexity. Spirit becomes progressively more differentiated, more inclusive, more self-aware. In Wilber’s terms, this is the trajectory of fullness — the movement he calls “Growing Up” or process of adult development. Things get fuller: more perspectives, more complexity, more integration. Hegel’s Encyclopedia system is the paradigmatic expression of this trajectory: from the abstract poverty of pure Being to the concrete richness of Absolute Spirit.

But Wilber’s framework also includes a fundamentally different trajectory: freedom — the movement he calls “Waking Up.” Freedom is not greater complexity or more inclusive perspective-taking. It is the recognition that awareness itself was never bound. The nondual witness — self-as-context in ACT’s vocabulary — is not a higher level of development achieved through greater sophistication. It is the discovery that the space within which all development occurs is itself already free, already complete, already what the traditions variously call Big Mind, Rigpa, the Absolute.

Žižek gets close to this with absolute negativity. The void, the gap, the “less than nothing” — these point toward a dimension that precedes and exceeds all determinate content. But Žižek can only think this negatively: freedom from determination, the barred subject, constitutive incompleteness. Wilber’s nondual includes the negative moment but goes further: freedom as the nature of awareness itself, which is simultaneously empty (freedom) and luminous (fullness). The two are not opposed; they are the same reality apprehended from different angles. Žižek has arrived at a genuine realization — but he has mistaken one moment in a longer journey for the destination.

This is where the complementarity of Wilber and Habermas becomes decisive, and where their combined contribution to the Nature-Spirit problem needs to be made explicit — because they are not doing the same thing, and neither alone is sufficient.

Habermas brings facticity, post-metaphysical epistemology, and a genuine developmental account. To be precise: Habermas is not without a theory of development. His work on communicative competence, his appropriation of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, and his account of the rationalization of lifeworlds all constitute a serious developmental framework — one that tracks how subjects grow in their capacity to make, challenge, and redeem validity claims across domains. This is Growing Up in Wilber’s terminology, and Habermas does it with epistemological rigor that Wilber sometimes lacks. His insistence that all validity claims — truth, rightness, authenticity — are fallible, revisable, and redeemable only through intersubjective discourse is what makes his framework genuinely post-metaphysical. There is no standpoint outside communicative action from which the whole can be surveyed and guaranteed. No cosmic idea underwrites the process. Every claim must be redeemable; every framework is provisional; facticity is the irreducible horizon within which all discourse operates.

Where Habermas falls short is not in development as such but in two specific trajectories. First, Cleaning Up: Habermas engages with psychoanalysis — his early work in Knowledge and Human Interests draws on Freud’s model of self-reflection as emancipation — but he never develops this into the kind of sustained depth-psychological account that Lacan provides or that Wilber’s Cleaning Up trajectory demands. The shadow, the unconscious structuring of discourse by repressed material, the ways in which communicative competence can be systematically distorted by unintegrated psychological content — Habermas acknowledges these in principle but does not give them the sustained attention they require. Žižek, whatever his other limitations, takes the unconscious far more seriously as a structuring force in both individual and collective life. This is Lacan’s genuine contribution, and it operates precisely in the territory that Habermas’s procedural rationality cannot adequately map.

Second, and more critically: Waking Up. Habermas has no account whatsoever of contemplative experience as a distinct domain of human development. His procedural rationality operates entirely within the horizon of discursive reason — the making and redeeming of claims through intersubjective communication. The direct experiential recognition, available through contemplative praxis, that awareness itself is not bound by any particular content — that the subject who makes validity claims is itself grounded in a prior openness that discourse presupposes but cannot thematize — falls entirely outside his framework. Habermas tracks how claims are made and redeemed in discourse; he does not track the transformation of the subject who is making the claims. His framework is rigorous but flat on this axis.

Žižek shares this limitation, though he approaches it from a different and more provocative angle. His absolute negativity points toward emptiness — the constitutive incompleteness of substance, the void at the heart of subjectivity. This is a genuine philosophical achievement, and it converges with the contemplative traditions’ recognition that awareness is fundamentally empty of fixed content. But Žižek can only think emptiness as lack — as the barred subject, the gap, the traumatic kernel that can never be integrated. He cannot think emptiness as simultaneously luminous, as the open ground from which all experience arises.

What makes this limitation especially striking is that Žižek himself repeatedly engages with a tradition that carries exactly this nondual recognition: Christianity. His readings of Paul, his appropriation of Chesterton’s paradoxes, his “Christian atheism” in which God dies on the cross and the Holy Spirit emerges as the community of believers — all of this flirts with the contemplative depths of the Christian tradition without ever arriving there. Žižek reads the crucifixion as the moment when the big Other itself is revealed as non-existent — God dies, and what remains is the gap, absolute negativity, the community constituted around a shared lack. This is a brilliant philosophical reading. It is also, from the perspective of the Christian contemplative tradition, profoundly incomplete. The mystics — Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing — did not stop at the void. They passed through it into what Eckhart called the “desert of the Godhead” (Wüste der Gottheit): an emptiness that is simultaneously the ground of all being, the luminous darkness from which all form arises. Žižek reaches for the kenotic moment — God’s self-emptying — but cannot think what the tradition itself discovered on the other side of that emptying: not nothing, but a fullness indistinguishable from freedom.

The same pattern holds across traditions. Žižek engages Buddhism only to critique it as a fantasy of wholeness — and he is right that certain popular presentations of Buddhism do function this way. But the Zen tradition’s rigorous engagement with emptiness — particularly in the kōan tradition and in Tōzan’s Five Ranks — is anything but a fantasy of wholeness. It is a disciplined, enacted confrontation with the void that arrives, through sustained practice, at the recognition that emptiness and form are not opposed. Žižek’s critique of Buddhism applies to the Buddhism he has read; it does not apply to the Buddhism that is practiced. Neither Žižek nor Habermas has access to the nondual realization that freedom and fullness, emptiness and luminosity, are not opposed — a recognition that is not a theoretical proposition but an enacted discovery available only through sustained contemplative praxis, within any tradition that carries the Waking Up function.

Wilber brings the developmental architecture and, crucially, Waking Up. His AQAL framework (articulated most fully in Integral Spirituality, 2006) maps not only the four quadrants (which provide the meta-theoretical architecture the Hegel-Lacan corridor lacks) but also the multiple trajectories of human development: Growing Up (increasing cognitive, moral, and perspectival complexity — the trajectory Habermas maps with genuine rigor), Cleaning Up (integrating shadow material — the domain where Lacan and psychoanalysis make their genuine contribution, and where Habermas’s engagement remains underdeveloped), Showing Up (embodied engagement with the world — the domain where Varela’s enactivism and Johnston’s 4E cognitive science are most relevant), and Waking Up (the recognition of nondual awareness, the freedom dimension that neither Žižek nor Habermas can access).

Waking Up is the decisive addition. Without it, all you have is fullness — increasing complexity, more perspectives, more integration, more development. That is genuinely important; Growing Up is real and it matters. But fullness without freedom is the bad infinite at the theoretical level: ever-more-sophisticated accounts of the gap, ever-more-nuanced diagnoses of the deadlock, ever-more-complex systems of thought — without transformation. The Hegel-Lacan tradition has been producing increasingly elaborate theoretical machinery for decades, and none of it has resolved the problems it diagnoses. This is not because the thinkers are insufficiently brilliant. It is because they are operating with only one trajectory — fullness — and mistaking it for the whole.

Waking Up is not another level of fullness. It is a fundamentally different kind of recognition: that the awareness within which all development occurs — all the growing up, cleaning up, showing up — was never itself developed, never itself bound, never itself in need of liberation. Self-as-context in ACT’s vocabulary points toward this directly: you are not your thoughts, not your feelings, not your stories, not your drives. You are the context within which all of these arise and pass away. This is not a metaphysical claim about a cosmic Absolute. It is a phenomenological finding — reproducible across traditions, testable through sustained contemplative praxis, and transferable to anyone willing to engage the practice. It does not require allegiance to any particular metaphysical system. It requires only that the practitioner show up and observe. This is what makes it genuinely post-metaphysical: it generates knowledge through enacted experience, not through dogmatic commitment to a speculative architecture. And it is precisely what Žižek’s absolute negativity reaches toward but cannot grasp — because Žižek’s Lacanian commitments allow him to think the void only as lack, never as the luminous openness that contemplative praxis, across every tradition that carries the Waking Up function, consistently discovers on the other side of that lack.

The Five Ranks: What the Nondual Actually Looks Like

But what does this trajectory actually look like from the inside? If freedom and fullness are genuinely distinct and yet ultimately nondual, how does the practitioner move from recognizing their difference to realizing their identity — without collapsing one into the other?

The contemplative traditions have mapped this with extraordinary precision. The most rigorous cartography is Tōzan Ryōkai’s Five Ranks (Go-i), the ninth-century Sōtō Zen teaching that traces the practitioner’s evolving relationship between the Absolute (emptiness, freedom, the Real) and the Relative (form, fullness, the Apparent). Wilber draws on Tōzan explicitly in Integral Spirituality, and Genpo Roshi’s Big Mind process — a contemporary adaptation of this teaching — makes the Five Ranks experientially accessible without requiring decades of formal Zen training. What follows is not a historical survey but a philosophical explication of why the Five Ranks matter for the Nature-Spirit problem — and why neither Žižek nor Habermas can access what they describe.

Rank One: The Apparent within the Real (Shō chū hen). The practitioner glimpses that all phenomena — thoughts, drives, deadlocks, the entire domain of fullness — arise within a prior openness that is not itself a phenomenon. Form is seen from the side of emptiness. The world does not disappear, but it is recognized as appearing within a boundless awareness that cannot be reduced to any of its contents. In ACT terms, this is the initial recognition of self-as-context: the discovery that you are not your thoughts. In the Nature-Spirit context, this is the moment the organism first steps back from the sex-death deadlock and recognizes that it is not identical with its drives. Žižek’s absolute negativity points toward this rank — the recognition that subjectivity is not reducible to substance. But Žižek treats this recognition as the whole story.

Rank Two: The Real within the Apparent (Hen chū shō). The practitioner discovers that the Absolute is not elsewhere — not above, behind, or beyond the phenomenal world. Freedom is found within fullness. Emptiness is discovered within form. The ordinary world — this body, this breath, this conversation, this deadlock — is itself the site of the Absolute. Nothing needs to be transcended. In ACT terms, this is present moment contact deepened to the point where attention to what is actually happening becomes itself a contemplative act. What was “mere” experience becomes luminous without ceasing to be ordinary. Habermas’s lifeworld — the pre-theoretical horizon of shared meaning within which all discourse operates — is, from this rank, already the Absolute operating in the register of the everyday. But Habermas cannot see this, because his framework has no contemplative dimension through which the lifeworld could be recognized as sacred.

Rank Three: Coming from within the Real (Shō chū rai). Freedom stands alone. Pure emptiness, pure witness, the Absolute without content. This is the most dangerous rank, because it is genuinely profound and genuinely incomplete. The practitioner may experience boundless awareness, the dissolution of the separate self, the void that precedes all phenomena. In ACT terms, this is self-as-context apprehended as pure context — awareness without any particular content to be aware of. This is precisely where Žižek lives philosophically: absolute negativity, the barred subject, “less than nothing,” the constitutive incompleteness of substance. It is a real realization, not an error. But it is Rank Three of Five. To mistake it for the final word — as Žižek does — is to remain trapped in freedom without fullness, emptiness without luminosity, the Absolute without the Relative. The bad infinite reappears at the contemplative level: the endless traversal of the void without return to the world.

Rank Four: Arrival at Mutual Integration (Hen chū shi). Freedom and fullness begin to interpenetrate. The practitioner no longer oscillates between emptiness and form, between the witness and the world. The Absolute is recognized as the Relative — not “in” it, not “behind” it, but as its very nature. And the Relative is recognized as the Absolute — not a fallen version of it, not a veil to be pierced, but the Absolute appearing as form. In ACT terms, this is where defusion and acceptance cease to be techniques applied to experience and become the texture of experience itself. The Hexaflex processes are no longer strategies for managing suffering; they are the organism’s natural way of being when psychological flexibility has stabilized into a trait rather than a state. Neither Žižek nor Habermas can reach this rank: Žižek because his Lacanian commitments prevent him from recognizing luminosity within the void, Habermas because his procedural rationality has no phenomenological access to the interpenetration of freedom and form.

Rank Five: Unity Attained (Ken chū tō). Freedom IS fullness. Fullness IS freedom. Not a synthesis that resolves the tension between them — not a higher-order integration that subsumes both into a third term — but the lived realization that there was never a gap. The ordinary becomes extraordinary without ceasing to be ordinary. Chopping wood, carrying water. Caring for one’s father. Writing an essay. Making the bed. The Absolute is not somewhere else. It is this — precisely this, exactly as it is. In Genpo Roshi’s Big Mind vocabulary, this is the integrated free-functioning human being who moves through the world without fixation on either emptiness or form. In ACT terms, this is psychological flexibility fully enacted: the organism navigating its facticity with values-directed committed action, not from a position of transcendence but from within the lived reality of its own situation.

The critical philosophical point — and this is what makes the Five Ranks indispensable for the Nature-Spirit debate — is that you cannot skip to Rank Five. The differentiation of freedom and fullness (Ranks One through Three) must be genuinely accomplished before their integration (Ranks Four and Five) is authentic rather than premature. A “unity” that has not passed through the differentiation is mere confusion — the pre-differentiated state that Wilber calls “pre/trans fallacy,” where prerational fusion with experience is mistaken for transrational nondual realization. Žižek, for all his limitations, has genuinely accomplished Rank Three. His absolute negativity is not a confusion; it is a real philosophical achievement. But it is incomplete. And its incompleteness explains why his framework can diagnose the deadlock but cannot resolve it — why the parallax gap remains a gap rather than opening into the mutual integration of Rank Four and the enacted unity of Rank Five.

The Five Ranks also illuminate why IEP is necessary. Each rank represents a different epistemological relationship between freedom and fullness, between the Absolute and the Relative. The practitioner does not comprehend the ranks theoretically and then apply them. The practitioner moves through them enactively — each rank is a lived realization, not a propositional truth. And different contemplative traditions map the same territory with different cartographies: Tōzan’s Five Ranks in Zen, the Four Yogas in Dzogchen, the stages of Teresa of Ávila’s Interior Castle in Christian mysticism, the maqāmāt in Sufi practice. IEP holds all of these as genuine but irreducible ways of knowing the same nondual reality — honoring each tradition’s validity conditions while refusing to absolutize any single cartography. Even the Five Ranks themselves are held fallibilistically within the IACT framework: a powerful map, not the territory.

Together, Habermas and Wilber provide what neither provides alone — and what the Five Ranks make concrete. Habermas provides the post-metaphysical epistemological discipline: fallibilism, procedural rationality, the refusal of any ultimate ground. He also provides a genuine developmental account of Growing Up — the trajectory of communicative competence and moral reasoning — that is more epistemologically rigorous than anything in either Žižek or Wilber. But Habermas lacks the depth-psychological seriousness of Cleaning Up and has no access whatsoever to the Waking Up trajectory that the Five Ranks describe. Wilber provides the developmental and experiential architecture: the quadrants, the multiple trajectories of growth, and above all the freedom dimension of Waking Up — including the nondual realization that freedom and fullness, once properly differentiated, reveal themselves as inseparable. But Wilber without Habermas risks the very metaphysical inflation that Shaul’s article exemplifies — the temptation to treat the integral map as itself the Absolute rather than as a provisional, revisable, fallible framework operating within facticity. Habermas without Wilber is rigorous but flat. Wilber without Habermas is deep but potentially dogmatic. Together, they provide the architecture for a genuinely post-metaphysical engagement with the nondual.

IACT holds them together — and Integral Epistemological Pluralism names the epistemological structure of this holding. Integral Facticity — the grounding concept of my framework — names the ontological horizon within which IEP operates: the Absolute is not a cosmic agent driving the system from behind (the premodern regression). Nor is it a mere procedural fiction (the Habermasian deflation). It IS the irreducible conditions within which all experience, development, and praxis occur — and it includes the practitioner’s awareness of those conditions. Facticity, in Habermas’s sense, as the horizon that cannot be transcended. Integral, in Wilber’s sense, as the recognition that this horizon encompasses all quadrants, all levels, all trajectories — including the freedom that was never lost. The Five Ranks show us what it looks like when this freedom is not merely theorized but enacted: differentiated from fullness, integrated with fullness, and finally recognized as never having been separate from fullness at all. IEP is the epistemological stance adequate to this horizon: multiple irreducible ways of knowing, held together not by theoretical synthesis but by the enacted flexibility of an organism navigating its own facticity — always already in the present moment of freedom that is none other than the fullness of this very life.

VI. The Functional Layer: Committed Action Across All Quadrants

This brings us to the decisive point. Shaul describes the animal’s undecidable decision as the transition from Nature to Spirit. Žižek calls it the “abyssal act.” Johnston grounds it in emergent neurobiological structures. But none of them can tell you what to do. The undecidable decision has no methodology. The abyssal act has no praxis. Strong emergentism has no intervention.

The ACT Hexaflex — the six interrelated processes of psychological flexibility — provides exactly this functional layer:

Defusion is the capacity to observe thoughts without being determined by them. In the Nature-Spirit context, it is the organism’s ability to notice the deadlock between drives without collapsing into either pole. Defusion does not resolve the parallax; it holds it.

Acceptance is willingness to have experience as it is, without avoidance or struggle. It is the organism’s capacity to remain present to the contradiction between sex and death rather than fleeing into the bad infinite of repetitive escape strategies.

Self-as-Context is the witness perspective — the awareness that observes all content without being any particular content. This is where ACT touches Waking Up directly: self-as-context is the enacted discovery of the freedom dimension that Žižek’s framework cannot reach.

Present Moment Contact is embodied attention to what is actually happening, as distinct from conceptual elaboration about what is happening. It is Varela’s enactivism in functional form: the organism coupled with its environment, bringing forth a world through attention.

Values are chosen directions of living that give meaning to action. They are what Shaul calls Spirit’s “drive toward novelty” — but grounded in the particular person’s actual life rather than in the Absolute Idea’s cosmic self-enjoyment.

Committed Action is the process that sustains and operationalizes all the others — and it does so across every quadrant of human existence, not only in the domain of outward behavior. In the Upper Left (interior-individual), committed action is the discipline of returning to contemplative practice, maintaining sustained attention to one’s own psychological processes, choosing again and again to observe rather than fuse. In the Upper Right (exterior-individual), it is the organism caring for its own biology — tending to the body as empirical probe, engaging with the material conditions of embodied life. In the Lower Left (interior-collective), it is the sustained investment in intersubjective meaning-making — maintaining relationships, engaging in communicative action, refusing to let shared understanding erode by default. In the Lower Right (exterior-collective), it is building and maintaining the systems, protocols, and institutions that support collective flourishing — Prosocial territory, Ostrom’s Core Design Principles enacted over time.

Without committed action operating across all four quadrants, the other five Hexaflex processes remain episodic — fleeting states rather than stable capacities. Defusion without committed action is a one-off insight that dissolves by morning. Acceptance without committed action collapses back into avoidance at the next provocation. Self-as-context without committed action is a glimpse of freedom that never becomes a way of life. Committed action is not the sixth process alongside the other five. It is the temporal dimension of psychological flexibility itself — the ongoing-ness of praxis within facticity, the process that transforms moments of flexibility into a sustained way of being.

When these six processes operate across Wilber’s four quadrants — individual interior and exterior, collective interior and exterior — you get IACT: Integral Awareness and Commitment Training. The Hexaflex is the functional layer. The quadrants are the meta-theoretical architecture. Prosocial (Atkins, Wilson, and Hayes 2019) extends psychological flexibility to group-level processes through Ostrom’s Core Design Principles for managing shared commons. And the whole is grounded in what I call Enactive Fallibilism: Peirce’s pragmatic fallibilism (every framework is provisional and revisable) combined with Varela’s enactivism (the body is the empirical probe; when systems cause suffering, systems are falsified).

VII. From States to Traits: The Temporality of Praxis

There is a dimension of the Nature-Spirit transition that the entire philosophical debate has failed to address: its temporality. Žižek wants a single dramatic break — the abyssal act, ex nihilo. Shaul wants the undecidable decision at a precise pivot point. Johnston wants the emergent property appearing at a threshold of neural complexity. All three conceive the transition as an event — something that happens once, even if it must be retroactively reconstructed.

But the lived reality of the transition from deadlock to freedom is not an event. It is a practice. It unfolds in time, one moment at a time, one step at a time, one day at a time. And the philosophical significance of this temporality has been hiding in plain sight — not in the Hegel-Lacan corridor, but in the great contemplative and religious traditions that have been cultivating precisely this practice for millennia.

The developmental mechanism works as follows. A moment of defusion, a flash of self-as-context, a single act of acceptance — these begin as states: transient, episodic, unreliable. The person glimpses freedom but cannot sustain it. The bad infinite reasserts itself. The deadlock returns. This is where most accounts of the transition stop — at the level of the breakthrough moment, the peak experience, the philosophical insight that cannot be maintained.

Committed action is what transforms states into traits. The practitioner returns to the practice — again and again, across all four quadrants, within the irreducible conditions of facticity. Each return is itself an undecidable decision in miniature: it cannot be derived from the prior pattern, it is not guaranteed by any system, and it requires the organism’s genuine participation. Over time — and this “over time” is precisely what the philosophical debate cannot think — repeated states crystallize into structural capacities. What was effortful becomes available. What was a glimpse becomes a stable perspective. What was a state becomes a trait. What was a moment of flexibility becomes a way of being.

And these stabilized traits, in turn, build new facticity. They change what the organism is, which changes what is possible for it. The person who has cultivated defusion as a stable capacity lives in a different world than the person still fused with every thought. The community that has developed collective psychological flexibility through Prosocial practices operates within different structural conditions than the community still trapped in zero-sum competition. Facticity is not only the given conditions one inherits. It is also the conditions one builds through sustained committed action. Development within facticity transforms facticity itself.

This is not a discovery unique to IACT or to ACT. It is a structure recognized across the great contemplative traditions — though what matters here is not the premodern metaphysical frameworks in which these traditions originally embedded their practices, but the Waking Up function that those frameworks carried. The point is not to recover a “perennial philosophy” that treats all traditions as saying the same thing beneath surface differences — that is precisely the kind of pre-critical synthesis that Habermas’s facticity and fallibilism rightly refuses. The point is a post-metaphysical retrieval: extracting the contemplative developmental practices from their premodern metaphysical containers, reading them through IEP as irreducible but genuinely plural ways of enacting the state-to-trait transformation, and helping the traditions themselves Grow Up without losing what they have always known about Waking Up. The Bodhisattva vow in Mahāyāna Buddhism is not a contract signed once; it is a commitment renewed in every moment of awareness — the practitioner choosing, again and again, to return for the sake of all sentient beings. The Christian daily office structures the entire day around the rhythm of renewed commitment — “Give us this day our daily bread.” The Jewish practice of teshuvah is not a single act of repentance but an ongoing turning toward, a reorientation that must be enacted in the present or not at all. Islamic dhikr — remembrance — names the continuous practice of re-orienting awareness toward the Real. Even the Ignatian Examen, within the tradition that most directly shaped Jesuit spirituality, is practiced daily: a nightly review of where Spirit moved, designed to cultivate sustained attentiveness across the whole of one’s life.

What all of these traditions share — and what the Hegel-Lacan corridor structurally cannot access — is the recognition that the decision to become fully human is not made once. It is not an abyssal act performed at the dawn of Spirit and then philosophically comprehended after the fact. It is a living orientation, sustained through committed action in every moment, always already in the present moment of freedom. The repetition is not the bad infinite. It is the deepening of freedom through sustained engagement with facticity. Each morning the practitioner wakes and chooses again — not because the previous day’s choice was insufficient, but because freedom is not a possession to be secured. It is a practice to be lived.

This is what Žižek’s framework structurally cannot see. He can describe the break — the single dramatic rupture with the prior order. But the Bodhisattva does not break once. The Bodhisattva returns. And the return IS the practice. The accumulation of these returns — one moment at a time, one day at a time — is how states become traits, how fleeting flexibility becomes structural capacity, how the organism builds the very facticity within which further development becomes possible.

IACT does not claim to have invented this. The contemplative traditions have been practicing it for millennia — though often within premodern metaphysical frameworks that modernity has rightly challenged. What IACT provides is the post-metaphysical architecture (Wilber’s AQAL quadrants and developmental trajectories, read through Habermas’s facticity and fallibilism) and the functional praxis (the ACT Hexaflex, extended through Prosocial to group-level processes) that retrieve the Waking Up function of these traditions without regressing to their premodern ontologies. Integral Epistemological Pluralism holds the contemplative practices of multiple traditions as genuinely irreducible ways of enacting the freedom trajectory — honoring each tradition’s validity conditions while refusing to absolutize any single tradition’s metaphysical claims. And Enactive Fallibilism ensures that even this holding remains provisional, revisable, and accountable to the lived experience of the organism that practices it.

VIII. Enactive Fallibilism vs. Speculative System-Building

This last point deserves emphasis, because it marks the sharpest difference between IACT and the tradition Shaul represents.

Hegel’s Encyclopedia is a closed system — the “circle of circles” in which Logic, Nature, and Spirit form a self-completing totality. Shaul’s reading preserves this closure: the Absolute Idea moves from Logic through Nature to Spirit and back again, enjoying itself through the circular self-movement of alienation and return. This is magnificent philosophical architecture. It is also unfalsifiable. No lived experience could ever challenge the system, because the system already includes all possible experiences as moments in its own self-development. Suffering becomes a “necessary” moment. Deadlock becomes “productive.” The bad infinite is retroactively redeemed by the true infinite that was always already at work.

Enactive Fallibilism refuses this move. Drawing on Peirce, it insists that every framework — including Hegel’s, including Wilber’s, including IACT itself — is provisional and subject to revision through encounter with recalcitrant experience. Drawing on Varela, it insists that the organism’s embodied engagement with its environment is the primary site of knowledge, not the speculative system that claims to comprehend it from above. When a system — philosophical, institutional, clinical, political — produces suffering in the organism, the system is tested and found wanting. This is not a grievance; it is a falsification event that demands revision through committed action.

The practical difference is enormous — and it concerns what kind of knowledge each framework produces. For Shaul, the animal’s encounter with the sex-death deadlock is philosophically comprehended within a speculative system — it is a “necessary” moment in Spirit’s self-creation, intelligible only to those who have already accepted the metaphysical architecture of the Encyclopedia. This knowledge is not reproducible outside that architecture. It is not testable by any practitioner who does not share Shaul’s Hegelian commitments. It is not transferable to the person actually trapped in a deadlock — in addiction, institutional dehumanization, relational rupture, or the bad infinite of bureaucratic systems — because it offers comprehension without praxis. It tells you what the deadlock means within the system. It cannot help you navigate it.

For IACT, a person’s encounter with deadlock is an empirical datum — not an illustration of a prior metaphysical truth, but a test of whatever framework is being applied. The question is not “how does this deadlock fit within the system?” but “does this framework help the organism move?” If the framework cannot help the person navigate the deadlock, the framework is falsified. Not the person. The framework. And this falsification generates genuinely post-metaphysical knowledge: reproducible (other practitioners can test the same processes), transferable (the Hexaflex operates across cultures, contexts, and populations), and revisable (Enactive Fallibilism demands that IACT itself be abandoned or revised when it fails). This is what distinguishes post-metaphysical praxis from premodern dogma: the willingness to let lived experience falsify the system, rather than letting the system explain away lived experience.

IX. Conclusion: What Is to Be Enacted

Shaul concludes his article with the political implications of the Nature-Spirit debate: Pippin’s gradualism, Johnston’s emergent structural interventions, Žižek’s revolutionary abyssal act. Each maps onto a different reading of the transition. Each has something to recommend it and something it cannot deliver.

IACT proposes a different kind of conclusion. The transition from Nature to Spirit — from deadlock to committed action, from the bad infinite to values-directed living — is not a single dramatic leap, not a gradual evolutionary process, and not an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural networks. It is a praxis: repeated, embodied, fallible, revisable, and always situated within the irreducible conditions of facticity. It is available to anyone, not because it descends from the Absolute Idea’s cosmic self-enjoyment, but because the capacity for psychological flexibility is a basic feature of human organisms navigating their environments.

Integral Epistemological Pluralism names the meta-theoretical structure of this praxis. The parallax gap — Žižek’s recognition that irreducible perspectives admit no neutral common ground — is not the end of the story. It is the beginning. IEP takes the irreducibility seriously, refuses the fantasy of theoretical synthesis, and asks instead: what kind of organism, with what kind of developed capacities, can navigate across genuinely plural ways of knowing without collapsing them? The Hexaflex is the answer at the functional level. The quadrants are the answer at the architectural level. Enactive Fallibilism is the answer at the epistemological level. And IACT is the name for the whole: the enacted, embodied, fallible navigation of epistemological plurality within facticity.

The Hexaflex does not resolve the parallax gap. It holds it. Defusion holds multiple perspectives without collapsing them. Acceptance holds suffering without fleeing. Self-as-context discovers the freedom that was never lost. Present moment contact grounds the organism in the only place any of this can happen. Values provide direction without cosmic guarantees. And committed action — sustained across all four quadrants, transforming states into traits, building new facticity through practice — makes the decision real. Not once. Not at the dawn of Spirit. But every morning, in every moment of renewed orientation, one step at a time, always already in the present moment of freedom.

The great contemplative traditions have practiced this for millennia — within premodern frameworks that modernity rightly outgrew. Contextual behavioral science is now empirically validating the functional mechanisms that these traditions enacted. IACT provides the post-metaphysical architecture that retrieves what the traditions knew about Waking Up while helping them — and us — Grow Up. The decision to become human is not made once. It is made over and over again and every moment.

Integral [+] Facticity

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?