Thread: difference between ‘outside’ and ‘meta’: Recently I’m noticing systems shopping conflated with being meta to systems. This is how I see the difference: ‘Systems shopping’ is my term for picking and choosing, mixing and matching, from different systems. 1/11
-
Show this thread
-
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche coined the term ‘spiritual materialism’ for shopping around spiritual systems, pulling out the bits that appeal, adopting different parts from different systems into one’s repertoire; a limited approach in some ways, but useful and serves a function. 2/11
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
My term ‘systems shopping’ means the same, applied to any type of system. Like walking through a mall, browsing different shops, buying a couple of things here and there. That’s shopping according to one’s preferences. We do this all the time. There’s nothing wrong with it. 3/11
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
When I walk through a mall as a consumer I’m not meta to the different outlets or to their context, I’m a piece of the picture, I have a function in it, I’m mostly ‘outside’ the shops, until I’m inside one while I browse. Not a great analogy. I hope the point is clear. 4/11
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
Being meta to a system is not defined by seeing the system from the outside. This is a necessary step in order to be meta, but not enough on its own. To be meta to a system, I have to fully understand how it works or fails. 5/11
1 reply 3 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Seeing how a system works and where it falls short means understanding the principles on which it is built, and the functions of the different parts, in context. This is often hard work, it takes time and effort. It requires involvement, connectedness and engagement. 6/11
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
I can pick parts from a system & remain outside with no connection. I can systems shop, even with contempt for the systems I’m taking from, using the bits and pieces to make a tapestry of coolness. But I cannot simultaneously be meta to a system and wholly disconnected from it. 7
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Being meta to a system is an act of interrelatedness. There’s usually some respect involved – because if there is no appreciation of the way a system tries to work or worked in its original context, why bother being meta to it? Better start somewhere else. 8/11
2 replies 4 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @_awbery_
This makes me think of John Shotter's excellent paper More than Cool Reason: ‘Withness-thinking’ or ‘systemic thinking’ and ‘thinking about systems’ PDF: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2012_09.dir/pdfajAMfjg0fI.pdf …pic.twitter.com/EeY0GHjhaJ
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I don’t know that paper and it does seem relevant - have bookmarked to read. Thanks!
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.