@The_Lagrangian one thing that puts me off: why would a postrat manifesto be so concerned with labels and stages
Conversation
Replying to
trying to (p)reach lower-stage folks?
(the distinction between manifestos that talk to converts and those that try to convert)
1
Replying to
Well… it’s just a framework that seems to explain some things. Can you recommend a better way of thinking about it?
1
Replying to
where it comes to identifying ways of thinking, I think the framework is pretty good; maybe not for enumerating them?
2
Replying to
Mmm… using small integers as category labels doesn’t imply arbitrary numbers also correspond to categories in the same set
1
1
Replying to
yes, but then why use ints at all? (sorry for being pedantic)
also as unenumerated example : a ToE-like synthesis of 4 and 5
1
Replying to
Well, ints were used because there is an invariant ordering. Maybe A B C D E would have been better. ToE = theory of everything?
1
Replying to
I am not so sure about that ordering, which is why I took issue with it. Maybe one can hold 3, 4 and 5 at once. ToE - yes.
1
1
Replying to
I do not get that systems/relationships axis at all despite cursory googling - what do I need to read?
Replying to
thinking in terms of p2p or p2egregore, but not the system as a whole
Replying to
based on meaningness.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/dev (but the 2x2 is mostly in jest, probably not clarifying much)
2
2
Replying to
It’s interesting… if you annotate it with the developmental pathway, that jumps diagonally in 3->4.
1
1
Show replies