Systems are inherently nebulous. Some seem more fixed and rigid than others: their vulnerability is less visible. But they are always less solid, separate continuous and defined than they appear.
-
-
The transition into systems mode is blocked by resistance to the rigid aspect of the system: the requirement to just ‘follow the rules’ or understand what the machine needs to make it work.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
From the warmth of ad-hoc communal responsiveness, accepting the imposition of the system looks anally retentive, boringly pedantic. And of course, it is! For someone in this position, the point is to heck, this needs at least another hundred tweets. Maybe I should start a blog.
Show this thread -
Anyhow I’m sure you can extrapolate the rest of this thread of logic through, into and beyond systems-thinking in relation to the two axes of mould/structure of the system and the adaptablity/structure of the individual in relation to the system.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For people who have (a) gone through a system, (b) recognized its flaws, and (c) have subsequently become meta-systematic, can they help design better (less rigid and dogmatic) systems for getting people into and through stage 4?
-
Yes. I think there’s a pressing need for more conscious, deliberate delivery mechanisms for transition. Socially embedded institutional routes are less reliable than they used to be in this regard (academia, life-long company careers for example).
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.