I agree with most of your points versus the critical movement, with the exception of the very last one. Although my heart often aligns with the critical movement on the basis of being anti-mechanistic, anti-reductionist, and libertarian, I have yet to find a voice there that has a consistent metaphysics grounded in either western or eastern philosophy. There is too much "social constructivism" in the critical movement. They are both anti-God, anti-idealism, anti-physicalist, anti-mechanistic, and anti-dynamicist, and thus are incoherent. It's as if they're anti-everything and thereby occupy an "epistemic no man's land", where no one actually doubles-down and commits to an established tradition. They are too circumstantial.
Jasper's, on the other hand, atleast understood what an Aristotelian and Platonic form was. He at least understood the importance of self-transcendence across the lifespan and hence it's effects on the personality system (self-governance and moral reasoning), along with the limits of potentiality (as in the limits of altered states of consciousness and the limits of meaning). Although I despise Jaspers because he's another Kantian, I will give him more credit than the modern critical movement.
Since you have endorsed integrative pluralism, does this now mean you will place the (emergentist) Temperament & Character Inventory by Cloninger on equal footings to the (reductionist) Big 5? Because last i checked, the TCI contextualizes each person across the lifespan from by grounding it in complexity science, self-organization, and autonomous action, whereby persons are operationalized as possessing irreducible properties or being self-causing "non-Heaps". Whereas the Big 5 instead approaches persons as "heaps" qua lists of summable factors that behave in billiard-ball fashion, that is, without form.
I agree with most of your points versus the critical movement, with the exception of the very last one. Although my heart often aligns with the critical movement on the basis of being anti-mechanistic, anti-reductionist, and libertarian, I have yet to find a voice there that has a consistent metaphysics grounded in either western or eastern philosophy. There is too much "social constructivism" in the critical movement. They are both anti-God, anti-idealism, anti-physicalist, anti-mechanistic, and anti-dynamicist, and thus are incoherent. It's as if they're anti-everything and thereby occupy an "epistemic no man's land", where no one actually doubles-down and commits to an established tradition. They are too circumstantial.
Jasper's, on the other hand, atleast understood what an Aristotelian and Platonic form was. He at least understood the importance of self-transcendence across the lifespan and hence it's effects on the personality system (self-governance and moral reasoning), along with the limits of potentiality (as in the limits of altered states of consciousness and the limits of meaning). Although I despise Jaspers because he's another Kantian, I will give him more credit than the modern critical movement.
Since you have endorsed integrative pluralism, does this now mean you will place the (emergentist) Temperament & Character Inventory by Cloninger on equal footings to the (reductionist) Big 5? Because last i checked, the TCI contextualizes each person across the lifespan from by grounding it in complexity science, self-organization, and autonomous action, whereby persons are operationalized as possessing irreducible properties or being self-causing "non-Heaps". Whereas the Big 5 instead approaches persons as "heaps" qua lists of summable factors that behave in billiard-ball fashion, that is, without form.