The numerous efforts to provide a method with sufficient compass for inner-cultural and cross-cultural comprehension, have been, for the most part, vulnerable to the following set of charges: that proponents of a given methodology either lack expertise in diverse disciplines or in the complexities of other cultures; or that they borrow a methodology from one discipline or one culture which ipso facto cannot be granted the universal validity necessary for cross-cultural or interdisciplinary studies. No doubt, each positive and human science, and each culture, has a dream of its supremacy and all inclusiveness. Phenomenologically speaking, such a dream is understandable; all modes of awareness have an eidetic generality that is prior to, and assumed by both empirical generalizations and rationalist categorical universalities. Yet it ought to be equally clear that each mode of awareness is restricted to the essential morphology of its specific content. As a result, the methodological issue that must be faced concerns the question of whether the diverse contents of the positive and human sciences are essentially incompatible. Given this issue it may be contended that each content may demand a specific methodology. This is most pertinent to contemporary Western scientific and scholarly disciplines and their radical fragmentations. As postmodern writers suggest, there is no longer a master discourse. It seems, then, that given this context, any effort to proffer some encompassing methodology will end up in a peculiar and at times nonsensical aggregate of concepts borrowed from various fields.