Could you please specify what you mean by this? And does it relate to every relgiion or only those which are not Abrahamic?
What I have heard is that, rather than calling Hindus and other apparent polytheists "worshippers of many gods" or "worshippers of idols," which would, by Jewish tradition, mean that there was something deeply wrong with their beliefs, and there were strict limitations on how we could interact with them; instead, many modern Jews choose to interpret that such apparent polytheists are actually not worshipping many gods, they are worshipping the One God, but instead of calling Him One, and saying that at different times He presents different aspects or moods to humanity, they err slightly and call those aspects different gods.
Technically, if you ask a well-educated Hindu-- or so I am told-- they will affirm that for them, all the gods are manifestations of Brahman. So this, for them, appears to be true. Modern Jews who hold the above opinion usually grant the same presumption to folk Buddhists, folk Jains, Zen Shintoists, and many Native American religions, as well as a few other animistic and indigenous religions. The Abrahamic religions have always been classed as monotheism, although we have sometimes had some philosophical issues with Christians concerning trinitarianism; but these modern attempts at inclusivity are directed at those major world religions that have traditionally been called "paganism" or "idolatry," which imply a rejection of the One God, thus posing problems for traditional Judaism.
"Incomplete perspectives" is maybe a clumsy shorthand for worshipping God the long way around, by treating His different aspects and moods each as a divinity to be worshipped, rather than what we perceive as the more direct route of treating Him as One. This is the kind of locution that modern Jews sometimes use in attempting to both adhere to our tradition and, at the same time, make an essentially insular and tribal religion more pluralistic and tolerant.
.
