I cannot speak authoritatively to KW's soteriology but maybe the simpler way to put this is that, for Christians, the unitive way is always marked by heroic virtue but many, maybe even most, of the virtuous are neither mystics nor contemplatives. For us, theological virtue is, in a word, democratized. Thus our hagiography includes doctors like both Teresa and Therese, with her little way. The norms of our formative spirituality are pluralistic and, while our Lonerganian conversions do transvalue each other, not all bands of our epistemological spectrum have to be fully lit for our little lights to shine! In terms of developmental lines, which might include sensations, desires, feelings, reason, intuition and the will, the will enjoys a certain primacy. There is otherwise what I like to call an enoughness in play, related to the Jewish concept of dayenu. Christian perfection is defined as the will to love and sin is our refusal to cooperate not our failure to cooperate (derived from our ineradicable finitude). We don't all need to morph into renaissance wo/men or necessarily engage an ethical imperative to develop higher consciousness as more broadly conceived beyond the surrender of our wills, unless so called by the Spirit. Worship forms, beyond general norms, are also pluralistic and Spiritual promptings to one vs another are often highly individualistic. I don't get the sense that KW engages such flexibility normatively in his particular integral vision but suggest that Christian, Advaitan and Buddhist traditions are more flexible and pluralistic, normatively, than his approach, which he advocates a tad too stridently and polemically? I'm not certain though, so accept this in the spirit of inquiry as an interrogatory. Finally, put one more way, I have no significant problems with the descriptive aspects of KW's quadrants, states, levels, stages, lines and such but I am still trying to understand their normative aspects. I mostly know what is necessary and sufficient for theosis; does KW consider a lot more "development" (both manifold and multiform) to be necessary before one's actions and aspirations are considered sufficient vis a vis one's spiritual journey? How individualistic and flexible is he in defining the approach to such human value-realizations (over against a robust polydoxy, for example)?
1