MetaJess

If you don’t have the emic experience of knowing a system fully, from the inside, then meta-systematicity is more likely to be a nice idea than an application in context.

So yes, I guess my take would be “make sure you understand how one system works so well that you’re confident you could answer pretty much any question about it, how it works, how you would apply it in different context, and what its failure modes are.”

Do you have any thoughts about the general pragmatics of meta-systematicity yourself?

The pointer on going very deep into a system is helpful. However, how deep should one go? Every interesting system/art is infinitely deep, and eventually touches threads of the entire macrocosm. I have experienced becoming meta-systematic to different layers of reality.

Yet, I found switching across arts helps you activate the mental fluidity in a different manner. e.g. I recently started Tango, and have done Qi Qong practice for about 2 years. I could feel they both started reinforcing each other right away.

The challenge is not to get to a few layers deep across 10 arts either - which I seem to do with meditation techniques. It feels like there is a difference between going into the depth (e.g. of spherical void) and the coverage area from different angles (spherical surface area)

Which system did you first decide to get meta systematic in; and how did you sense you had mastered it entirely