Your favorite books and links
- Site Admin
- Posts: 12414
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Yes, such a structure would obtain. I do note that the Hegelian constructor is very flexible and in principle it can build in any direction(*). I also think the process (personal observation) is inherently slow because not only does the solution subject have to experience dichotomies (typically by failing) to objectivize(SP?) the solution, he is ALSO subject to getting stuck in Dunning-Kruger purgatory.
(*) So supremely prone to model-fitting. I mean ... what is, for example, the opposite of an electron? What direction do you reflect? A particle physicist would say it's a positron, but an atomic physicist/chemist would probably say it's a proton.
Basically, I think each constructor (from one Kegan level to the next) requires one to go through the CCCC... steps (see ERE book) to reach the Coordination level (synthesis) before one becomes capable of Creating the next level. What I'm saying is that one might easily get stuck at Mt Stupid (Compilation) for a given Kegan level. It takes a mental leap of questioning everything you know in order to move from your Kegan3 compilation/list of how you deal with each and every person you know; especially if you're really good at it.
PS: This is something I've been thinking about for my "special secret project" (I have my own tables and diagrams ). I'm not sure how a map of the territory is useful insofar that the average human will never be able to advance very far wrt the territory (even with a map)---thus confirming the title of the thread. It's easy to understand why that is once it's grokked why one is personally stuck at one's present level + nobody seems to know what Kegan6 is.
This doesn't tell you how to select/count effects/states in practice. Ultimately, I think that trying to define complexity or information is dependent on context or domain. Claiming a domain-independent definition seems to be synonymous with the 4th order. A more intuitive and approximate (yet relative) measure that we use all the time is containment (i.e. system A is more complex than system B if B is contained in A). This lead me to wonder if something like a "holarchical morality" is a closer description of the 5th order synthesis (I do not think it can ever be perfect).
The holarchy could have territories, systems, contexts, domains, or whatever can be conceptualized as objects. The lower levels would inherit the morality of the higher levels because they are contained within them. Each object would have its own history that is accounted for. At this stage, any individual agent would still only represent a subject that is dependent on how they conceptualize the boundaries, because it seems that even from an "objective" perspective the boundaries can be drawn in an infinite number of ways (..so as to remain consistent with the subject). Moralities would conflict with each other to give emergence to a dialectic. It is basically a hybrid of universal and relative morality.
It is a mystery to me that a direction of containment seems to exist; just like it is a mystery that time seems asymmetric. What if smaller things are always composed of smaller things (turtles all the way down) so complexity is an illusion. What if the parts are wholes and wholes are parts. An Alice in the Wonderland mind-fuck.
I am susceptible to this. I try to counter it by constructing several models then switching to a falsification mind-set.jacob wrote: So supremely prone to model-fitting.
This is a fascinating connection.jacob wrote:What I'm saying is that one might easily get stuck at Mt Stupid (Compilation) for a given Kegan level.
Looking forward to publication. Try not to rush.jacob wrote:PS: This is something I've been thinking about for my "special secret project" (I have my own tables and diagrams ).
This makes a lot of sense. I have had this feeling of unease recently where I noticed my usual methodology hit an apparent dead-end. It no longer makes much sense for me to mine golden nuggets that add significant value to how I "compute". Computing a map that navigates the problem is like describing a needle in a needle-stack; ten minuets later it does not matter, because by then I compute a new description for that needle which takes into account the relationship to some other needle. Too many options.jacob wrote:I'm not sure how a map of the territory is useful insofar that the average human will never be able to advance very far wrt the territory (even with a map)---thus confirming the title of the thread. It's easy to understand why that is once it's grokked why one is personally stuck at one's present level + nobody seems to know what Kegan6 is.
I still have this strong instinct to compute, but now it makes more sense to have an end that I am coordinating towards. I am starting my own "special secret project". The challenge for me will be setting a boundary for its scope so that I do not abandon it.
In other news, I came up with a more condensed version of the Hegel-Kegan-chart thing along with simple geometric relations. Very simplified and looses information, but the purpose is to help me construct a different chart for my new project.
I have also been thinking about the implications of Russel's paradox (..along with the incompleteness theorems). Somehow, I can feel that there is a deep connection to "common"-sense reasoning.