Some problems with dogmatic theory

As I noted in the video and my summary paper:

"In my political framing I do not mention integral or metamodern theory but rather focus on the progressive issues at hand in their own terms."

I know that dogmatic integralists (aka kennilinguists) will think "but hey, that's not integral because he doesn't explicitly cover AQAL." To me that's a paltry understanding of integral theory.

First, to reach and influence a broader audience we need to speak to people in their own terms, not try to program them in some esoteric mumbo jumbo. Sure that might work on some of our leaders in politics and business, but as I also noted in the talk the effectiveness of that 'trickle-down' strategy is questionable and seems more in line with the equally ineffective conservative trickle-down economic strategy.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we don't have to put things explicitly in AQAL terms to cover its bases. And we don't have to cover all those bases in any one communication by any one individual. We can as a team cover more of the bases as for example in our group talk, as some did so more explicitly. For any individual to try to explicitly do it all in every communication by focusing mostly on an AQAL framework misses most of the important practical details of actually implementing its theory. And it keeps that theory mostly in the ethereal, abstract domain of an insular, elitist in-group instead of enacting the Prime Directive of the health of the entire spiral.