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.
-
Show this thread
-
Systems are inherently nebulous *because* they are social, built from contextual demand. Systems all have an invisible mould, it’s their alter-ego. Each system’s alter-ego is a facet of its nebulosity.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Catastrophic systemic collapse often involves willful blindness to a changed environment - but not always. It’s also true that an evolving society sees the lumbering, stupid, heavy alter-ego of its systems. The invisible mould becomes embarrassingly, painfully visible.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
The crowds gathered at the Berlin Wall in 1989 were *literally* waiting at that check point. They knew how things were. They’d been waiting for years already:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bN9ZRj3NBs …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
In But can a machine play? @jesswatmiller exposes the alter-ego of two different system types built for bodies:https://autotranslucence.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/but-can-a-machine-play/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
There is no right or wrong system, but there’s different fit. Some have a strong, more clearly defined mould, some are easily adaptable. The type of mould dictates how we relate with them.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Capacity to be moulded by a system is important and necessary. As an aspect of psychological development in the Kegan framework it’s the basic requirement for Stage 4 participation. This is an act of submission, of surrender, unappealing to many and a key point of resistance.
3 replies 3 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @_awbery_
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?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cognazor
>moulding your behaviour to a prescription is unappealing, unless you fully understand the function of doing so. So, developing ways to teach and train that understanding seems the better option. Enforced social roles are less available and less appropriate for current societies.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_awbery_
Right. It seems impossible to avoid some degree of resistance to entering a system. But it can definitely be done with orders of magnitude less PTSD!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, maybe one of the current tasks is to figure out general characteristics of function-driven structures that are less susceptible to power play than our current ones. That’s hard.
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.