This is great, thanks! One quibble: the statement that no-one has read Kuhn. My impression is very different. This may be a question of social circles, but I'd expect most people moderately interested in how science is done to have seriously engaged with Kuhn.
-
-
-
That may be pure personal projection! I read him as an undergraduate, but I seem to have missed the point, because when I re-read the book a few months ago, it was quite different from what I remembered.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, he’s got useful insights too. I have read his “Tacit”; not sure if I also read “Personal”.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Just to nitpick, you said "I think Kegan’s stage 5 framework..." where you meant Kohlberg, I presume. This makes me feel better because of the excessive latency it takes me in conversation to reliably choose the correct name!
-
I did mean Kegan’s, actually. I think his ethical schema is superior to Kohlberg’s.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/2 Thank you for writing this! Just started reading but love this:
-
2/2 "Nagarjuna, was severely confused, but he was so extremely holy that you aren’t allowed to contradict him"
End of conversation
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.

These books were the sources of Meaningness! A different guide to the overall shape of my work: the history and significance of each inspiration.