Okay so. Multiple tweets incoming. I want to bring this back to Kegan (as interpreted by Chapman); I'm not super interested in Defending Postrat Honor or the reverse. I think this essay is probably a better articulation than he has done elsewhere: https://vividness.live/2015/10/12/developing-ethical-social-and-cognitive-competence/ …
-
-
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
Lots of people use various systems of some degree of formality or rigidity as a way to approach / interpret / act on the world. These systems are often imperfect or incomplete, and people often use systems that are, strictly, *contradictory*, in different situations.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
There are 3 ways to respond to this contradiction: 1. Be very upset about it and spend a lot of effort trying to resolve all the contradictions. Make a Grand Unified System. Be depressed when this turns out to be hard or impossible. Chapman would call this "stuck at Kegan 4".
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
2. Note that other people seem to fluidly switch between systems, and infer that they don't actually believe in the systems AT ALL. Infer that the "real" system they are using is "do what's best for me and mine, making up excuses as necessary". Chapman calls this the 3 view of 5
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
2b. Chapman calls 4.5 the variant on this where you decide to go the way of e.g. critical legal theory and decide "the system is just a tool for my ends, rules aren't important at all" is right and proper.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
3. Be basically *okay* with fluidly switching between systems. Accept that while we may not have a fully specified system-of-systems to make these decisions, it's still possible to have legitimate discussions and debates over "which system is best for this problem"...
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
... This is how much of law works (in common law systems, at least). The arguments made aren't fake, but neither is there a clear, objectively correct legal interpretation algorithm that everyone can apply and always come to the same answer.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
Judges weigh many competing factors in deciding how to interpret the law, but they don't weight purely according to narrow partisan interest (despite biases that can exist).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky @SilverVVulpes and
You can have similar discussions between two programmers over which language is best for a task, or two civil engineers over which assumptions are best for their model of a bridge.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Nicely done!
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.