Ken Wilber's system of four quadrants is a workable concept for organizing worldviews, I think. However, the reduction from second person to first person plural ignores the essential quality of dialogue: When I say "you," I do not mean "we," nor do I mean "I" or "he." These are merely aspects of the "you". The main point is the change of perspective as such that creates the dialogue, the perception of another individual as itself and thus the second person view. I change my point of view to the other's point of view (at least partly) and come back to a new own point of view, and so on. Since this change underlies all the other quadrant views (you are only "he" when I am mainly I), it could be the middle quadrant or the big one that underlies/encompasses the others.
Another problem I see is to consider all quadrants equally. Who perceives the four quadrants and changes between them? Since consciousness is omnipresent, as Wilber himself states elsewhere, the first-person view should be at the top, followed by the other three views as special aspects of the dynamic "I" (the individual focus, the universal subjectivity). Thus, the individual becomes a dynamic hierarchy culminating in the center of "I". It is only from this perspective that "others" and collectives are possible in the last consequence.
The above hierarchy can be illustrated by this picture:
Meanwhile, Ken Wilber has published a different explanation (consistent within his own framework) that assumes - as most scientific concepts do - that we can't fully access another you. It is said that we can only approach it from its outside, from our own I. But how do we know that there is anything to "approach" at all? Strictly speaking, we can't. So all these concepts lack a deeper consistency.
