Rich concludes his penetrative analysis with the following:

An integral theory which valorizes its own epistemology by denying other traditions, theories, practices their own voice, or by simply mis-characterizing them segregates rather than integrates. Any theory which asserts itself ideologically by cannibalizing other traditions and appropriating the voice of alterity as a function of its integral model while discarding the ten thousand nuances, subtleties, traces of culture which are essential to indigenous identity, fails at the level of integration itself. Such theoretical practices are not integral but imperialist, such discourses do not achieve cultural hybridity but rather cultural hegemony. Such an integral theory is colonialist at its worst and patronizing at its best.

Well said. Yet what is "Integral"? Not a collection of everything, I suppose. There has to be also individual selection, yet keeping the "Integral" intact. How does one do that? RYD