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
-
Show 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 26 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 13 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 27 likesShow this thread -
Being meta to a system involves creativity, but it doesn’t necessarily involve any of the pieces of the original system. This is an important distinction between systems shopping and meta-systematicity. Systems shopping, by definition, gathers parts and pieces. 9/11
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Systems shopping is an act of collection and comparison, often collective and collaborative. The pieces acquired are definitional, sometimes deterministic. Meta-systematicity may, or may not, retain parts of the original system. It does not rely on them. 10/11
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
The meta-systemic focus is application in context. Congruent application often requires starting from first principles, understanding partial contributions and functionality, re-working from scratch in a new context. It is paradigmatically different from systems shopping. 11/11
2 replies 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @_awbery_
Would you say being meta to a system requires “fully understanding” that system? “Fully” is a problematic word here but I hope you see what I’m gesturing at
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @levity
I think that the first time one goes meta it’ll probably be after ‘fully’ engaging with a system. But the more one understands the relevant field, the less detail one requires to get the systems. What do you think?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_awbery_
I agree—the first time you “pop out the top” of a system, i.e. see how it is useful but partial and interdependent, you have the chance to learn that this is true of systems generally, and might make the meta move sooner the next time
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
The ironic thing though is that pattern-matching too quickly can lead you to try going meta without having grasped the insight of a system (Chesterton’s fence) and end up systems shopping
-
-
Replying to @levity
I think that’s true, and more relevant now than previously, because ‘meta’ everything is fashionable and part of a growing cultural sensibility.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
