Can we really be meta-systemic without understanding the system first? I feel like the meta (or post) stage is only valuable when you know the system capabilities & limits. Example:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1009857899412185088?s=19 …
understanding and mastering are very different things. I'd also suggest that mastery naturally needs into meta-systemacity but that's because I see that in the examples I would reach to for 'masters', so I'm biased. I've also never mastered any system, so I don't know.
-
-
I'd see these 'close minded systems masters' as being stuck in the Adept Phase (or perhaps masters that adopted a personal map that doesn't actively collaborate/grow - the hallmark of a limited map).https://twitter.com/jaredjanes/status/1010259291863838721 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/ Agreed, from my perspective if I had to roughly define the learning process I've seen it might be something like the following... Beginner Phase: Understand and start to build fundamental skills required to increase proficiency in given field.
-
2/ Aspirant Phase: Further develop skills while also spending significant effort studying and starting to try to apply the maps/paths of the field. This phase deepens map resolution & starts to chart the subjective territory. Discovery focused.
- 4 more replies
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.