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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @JaredJanes and
To clarify: I wasn't saying that the stages themselves are "modern" but that the enterprise of developmentalism is a "modern" one. Modern or not, I don't mean to say his quadrant schema wasn't brilliant. Skeptical me sees it as more a math problem that exists within a schema,tho.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LC_Ceriello @JaredJanes and
Right, sorry, to clarify what I said, by “the modern stages” I meant roughly his blue, orange and green memes—the “late first tier”—although green is maybe postmodern. He has second and third tiers which are apparently unbounded upward, and might correspond with metamodern
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I would think that the developmental framework is modern only if it is taken as a concrete and objective ontological reality. The versions of it I favor are explicitly reflective and address their own nebulosity.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @LC_Ceriello and
I am not a fan of Wilber’s work, although I too would acknowledge flashes of brilliance, along with much I find confused or mistaken
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.