I guess this is the closest thing:https://meaningness.com/metablog/meta-rationality-curriculum …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @antlerboy
Generically, one way or another, you need to first come to master systematic thinking; and then, through experience, to recognize its limitations. And then re-think how and why systematicity works (when it does).
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
So I think the longer version is messier than this - rational frame (embedded in life/practice/stage of life), breakdown... And each time either a new rational frame, or despair, or blind faith(/cargo cultism), or metarationality, or...
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @antlerboy @Meaningness
...perhaps Incipient metarationality scaffolded from bits of multiple previous frames that still work and new interpretations of bits that don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @antlerboy @Meaningness
(And the reason Macintyre is an interesting case is he talks about this at a world/cultural level *and* he himself visibly progresses through a journey in his life/work)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @antlerboy @Meaningness
I would bet that Jacques' levels of thinking - given he was the man who coined the very relevant term 'midlife crisis' - would reflect this. So give praise to manipulative gurus, bad marriages and received religion, for they reliably precipitate epistemological crises?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @antlerboy
It would be great if they actually were reliable! Usually, they are unmitigated disasters. Such crises may be necessary, but definitely not sufficient. What enables some people to learn from an epistemological breakdown, to move to metasystematicity?
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think, from experience and a few cases, that undergoing a crisis (family/spiritual seems particularly powerful) while in a context that enables conversation about levels of rationality, explicit triple-loop learning etc, certainly helps.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @antlerboy
Yes… It may be *possible* to accomplish the epistemological/cognitive work of metasystematicity without doing the emotional, social, spiritual, ethical work—but it’s probably easier and safer in the long run to do all together at the same time.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @antlerboy
But would a metasystematic framework by itself be 'empty' without the emotional/social/spiritual/ethical work? That is, would it be like a 'tool' that could be used in certain circumstances (e.g., in a scientific context) while being detached from ordinary experience?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
It very well might! Ultimately, this is an empirical question, which could only be answered definitely by extensive longitudinal studies that haven’t been done yet afaik.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.