I'm not sure if there's even such a word as "integralism" as a philosophical or metaphysical position. But what I mean here is the double meaning of the word "integral" that has developed around followers of Sri Aurobindo and Ken Wilber, each of whom only use the term in a single context.

As used originally by Sri Aurobindo, "integral" referred to his own Integral or Purna ("Full" or "Complete) Yoga, which involves the transformation of the entire being, rather than simply a single faculty such as the intellect or emotions or physical body, and which has as its goal the Supramental Transformation. Later, Indra Sen, a follower of Sri Aurobindo, presented a more limited description of his metaphysical and occult tecahings as they pertain to Psychology, this became "Integral Psychology" (note that this latter word now has a number of other, non-aurobindonian meanings - e.g. Wilberian, etc)

As used by Ken Wilber, the word "Integral" refers to his own "Theory of Everything" intellectual worldview and teachings, which are considered by himself and his followers to be of the "Turquois" memetic evolutionary level (or vMEME, in the Spiral Dynamics system, which is a non-Dawkinsian definition - see the more common use of "meme") and hence "Second Tier" and universall inclusive. In the Wilber-Beck system, this is seen as more inclusive and evolved than all the preceeding blue (fundamentalist), orange (power seeking), green (note here Wilber's attack on eco-philosophy) and yellow (scientific secular modernity) vMEMEs, which are considred to be "lower tier".

Wilber seems originally to have based his definition on that of Jean Gebser who proposed that human consciousness evolves in an ascending series from archaic through magical, mythical, mental, to the aperspective and finally the integral. The current "integral movement" is very much the result of Wilber's tireless (and so far not very successful) efforts at getting this larger paradigm accepted by the postmodernist and sceptical mainstream academia.

Between these two poles - Aurobindonian and Wilberian - a third position seems to be emerging, that of a universal and all-inclusive philosophy or worldview that draws on common themes from Sri Aurobindo, Ken Wilber, and other thinkers (see Integral Thought)

I use the word "Integral" in this universal context to describe my own "metaphysical Theory of Everything", although I lean much more to the Aurobindonian than to the Wilberian position.

Links

Open Integral Blog - a post-Wilberian and non-Wilberian Blog for the Integral Community.

Towards a Larger Definition of the Integral - An Aurobindonian vision and a critique of the Wilberian paradigm my essay in three parts - part 1, part 2, and part 3, on Integral World