Um… I’m not sure I understand the question. I think you may have a different understanding of what Kegan’s stages are about than I do, and I’m not able to translate the question for that reason.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
First principle of epistemology (confidence in belief must equal evidence in support) is the foundation of gaining agency over one's beliefs, but incompatible with many religious narratives. If you get through the school of mysteries, do they eventually tell you this secret?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I’m reasonably sure not. Mainstream Buddhism isn’t a mystery religion at all. It has a surprisingly formal, well-developed epistemological theory, which explicitly takes scripture as unquestionable Truth.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
In other words, even the most evolved adherents of mainstream Buddhism will not have agency over the contents of their beliefs (i.e. need to skip parts of what is roughly Kegan's stage 4)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Stage 4, if I understand Kegan correctly, just means you have a system. Any system. It can be completely bogus. The Buddhist systems are completely bogus, imo.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Perhaps I don't understand Kegan correctly, but imho stage 4 marks the departure from externally assimilated beliefs to internally constructed ones, and that necessary involves the exploration of the criteria for valid beliefs? (Not that I want to discuss Kegan exegetics here.)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Oh, I see, interesting! Yes, I can see how you could interpret it that way. But my understanding is that generally the system you adopt at stage 4 is one that is publicly available.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Do you think that there are multiple valid epistemologies (i.e. systems to establish truth that lead to different truths but are equally valid)? And don't you think that public availability is incidental instead of relevant?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I don’t think there are any valid epistemologies—not in the strong sense rationalism wants. And, I do think public availability is critical. Individual minds are no powerful enough to go more than a tiny bit beyond what’s already understood.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
New understandings emerge from a gradual accumulation of small insights from many people. Sometimes suddenly pieces fit together, and there is a dramatic advance—but it depends on that prior incremental improvement.
-
-
Sometimes a genius pulls the pieces together. But even then, simultaneous invention shows that the genius stood on the shoulder of thousands of pretty smart people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Newton was a genius—but Leibnitz invented calculus mostly-independently at the same time. And Newton’s PhD thesis advisor developed much more of the theory than is generally known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Barrow …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
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.