I guess I would say, invent away! But can someone explain one thing: Why call these things "metamodern" when y'all already have perfectly good terms for the things you're describing--terms that are not already in use and doing work in critical/cultural theory capacities?
-
-
Replying to @LC_Ceriello @GregDember and
I sympathize—It’s worrying and frustrating when a term one invents gets appropriated and used for somewhat different things by some larger group that you don’t have sway over and who may not understand the original meaning.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @LC_Ceriello and
I find great personal, systemic & cultural value/overlap from all these lenses. My intention here is to get our disparate 'meta' camps to engage more with each other in the name of generative exploration. Throwing some more nebulosity into mix I suppose.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JaredJanes @LC_Ceriello and
There does seem to me to be significant resonances and overlaps and that mutual awareness should be helpful!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @JaredJanes and
Re “why bring in dev psych”: because of the explicit and apparently valuable correspondence between the stages of personal development and the historical development from tradition to modernity to postmodernity to metamodernity.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JaredJanes and
Yeah, to me that correspondence is a stretch. For instance, what do you do w the fact that there are plenty of "trad'l people" (or modern, or pomo...) out there in this MM moment, and all these "stages" will continue to be present long after MM is replaced by the next episteme?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LC_Ceriello @JaredJanes and
Well, that’s explicit in the explanations of people who make this correspondence (e.g. Robert Kegan). Only some people in a society are fully able to adopt the later, more difficult epistemes, which develop at an intellectual cutting edge.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JaredJanes and
but still, what do you do when MM is surpassed by the next -ism and yet MM is supposed to be the term for the pinnacle, cutting edge of personal development?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LC_Ceriello @Meaningness and
It seems to me that the Hanzi/dev psych people run into the same problem that Wilbur did w spiral dynamics -- the pinnacle can only be seen from the vantage of the people at the pinnacle. But what about what those sages cannot see yet b/c it turns out that was only one pinnacle?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LC_Ceriello @JaredJanes and
Didn’t Wilber have a whole slew of hypothetical stages beyond the modern ones? Again I don’t find them credible but as far as I know he didn’t put any upper limit on them?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Hanzi may have made this mistake (but I haven’t read the book). Are there any representatives of “developmental metamodernism” beside Hanzi?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @LC_Ceriello and
Perhaps we could get some solid input from
@helixly here. He seems to have a pretty broad perspective on dev psych.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JaredJanes @Meaningness and
Any researcher of developmental psychology, meaning those who actually interview and score text and speech using sound research instruments, knows stages aren’t real even though they are spoken about as such. Does that make every developmentalist post Piaget metamodern?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.