Conversation

Replying to
tldr of this thread... the problem of meaning is a problem of life-force in disguise, and has historically been addressed via one of 3 stances: serious, crazy, and humorous. Meaning-making, gonzo-experiential, and humor. Maps to sorokin's ideational, sensate, idealistic perhaps?
2
2
Replying to
This is good. Here for it <deer eating popcorn.gif> Off the cuff question: Do the 3 stances map in any predictable way... (or could one shape one's life stances in a way) that might rhyme or resonate with a developmental model (Kegan) or a traditional life shape (4 ashrama?)
2
Replying to and
I'm thinking that serious is an early adulthood stage (cf bildungsroman/Brahmacharya/early career development) Gonzo-experiential is either a deepening commitment to a major project (career & family, or a major step off the conventional path) Humourous is a sort of Ironic Sage
2
Replying to
Hmm I wouldn't map these to life stages. I think you lock on to one of the 3 fairly early, like as a teenager, and pretty much stay there. You might take a tourist detour into the other 3 paths, but I've never met anyone who's shifted fundamentally.
1
Replying to and
My original inclination, as a teenager (like you referenced), was quite capital S Serious. very interested in Meaning Became inspired by very Gonzo types, and went through hardcore quest for the gonzo grail of experience Am rapidly identifying less and less with those stances
2
Replying to and
The distinction was that I don't think it was a tourist path through those two. some pretty hard core traumatic stuff intervened, as well as some Rao-ian "crashes" Kind of reformatted a lot of my relationship with the world
1
Replying to and
But your overall hunch that in general, these 3 stances don't map to life stages, and that they are personality attractor states that show up early in life and tend to persist, rings quite plausible to me. my life arc isn't generalizable, even among outliers. (not a boast)
1
Replying to
This is a general bias on my part, and one reason I don't resonate as much with Kegan as and others do. I feel life-stage theories are in general overtheorized and life-variety theories undertheorized. Most people don't grow much. But they vary more than we think.
2
6
Replying to and
Yeah that's actually a big part of why I follow you. In the parliament of ideas I like to hear from the minority parties, and you definitely have an interesting opposition to contrast with Kegan, similar theorists, and ' project. I like that distinction...
2
Replying to and
I don't know that I oppose that viewpoint so much as I am interested in a different scope. Developmental psych/philosophy approaches are instrumental in the sense of stack ranking the human condition and making the "best" in some sense better by unpacking it.
Replying to and
I think I'm interested in the broadest swathe of the human condition, hence my interest in topics like mediocrity, non-growth paths, variety, etc. To the extent that I'm interested in a subset of humans, I'm interested in the ones that simply manage to survive.
1
1
Replying to and
Ie, looking at adaptive fitness and survival as a mark of interestingness and living richness, without holding any particular opinions on what makes a life worthwhile/rich/meaningful or evolved/growth-oriented. If idiocy or green beards are adaptive, that's what I'm curious about
1
Replying to and
Perhaps the parliamentary metaphor wasn't really good. Too adversarial in its connotations, especially when I added the "opposition" part. Given that I hail from a Westminster countr, I should know better. "Council of ideas" rather than "parliament".
1