How to: Meta // Mastering the Ne

[TimeAsylums]

How to go beyond an idea:

Ignore brash language, and focus on the message:

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-meta-leveling-design-strategy-1.html

On Meta-Leveling - Design Strategy #1

Importance of Formal Definitions

Like other commonly understood terms such as life, intelligence, empathy & morality, meta-leveling is easily understood and admits to many crappy semi-useful definitions.

Definitions which don't provide any useful insight into what the fuck the phenomenon actually is since they are fuzzy, slippery and squishy. This "wealth" of crappy inaccurate, incorrect definitions leaves people scratching their heads when boundary cases come up. As they inevitably do.

Are viruses alive? Most biologists don't know because they don't have enough insight into what life is. And they lack insight because they don't have a single fucking formal definition. Is having just one too much to ask? Mathematicians often work with half a dozen, and gain insight from each and every one of them.

Unyielding, rigid and formal definitions of common terms are exceedingly useful when you're pushing the boundaries. When you're not content not-thinking the same crap every other group-thinking moron is not-thinking about. And I'm not talking about average people here, I'm talking about academics who supposedly are intellectuals.

What Is Meta-Leveling?

Well, you've just had a fine example of it above. I intended to write an article about a formal definition of meta-leveling I developed a few weeks ago. It's in my mind now because just yesterday I developed a definition of transcending.

But before getting into a formal definition of meta-leveling, I thought it would be important to get straight what it is in the first place. And then I realized it was even more important to explain why a formal definition of meta-leveling is important.

What is meta-leveling formally? It is making a complete model of a system and then annotating the model by determining its most important elements. Which are almost always the elements with the greatest freedom of output.

How To Meta-Level

Okay, when I say model, you can forget UML or any other such crap. You'll see why in a minute. You can also forget functional modeling since that only works for mathematicians. 90% of human beings are better suited to OO since human brains prefer SVO word order to VOO. So pick up Object Oriented Systems Analysis by Embley, Kurts & Woodfield. It's available from Powells and of course Amazon.

Meta-leveling is nothing more than creating a complete OOSA model of the system whose parts you're thinking about then annotating the model. It's based on those annotations that you decide what parts of the system to think about. Because some elements (objects, relationships or interactions) are more free in their output than others (they're generally the ones that control the system).

Other elements contradict each other in the system. There may also be contradictions between elements and the system as a whole. There may be overly complicated elements that can be simplified. Or made weaker, or made stronger, or made more general, or more flexible, or more restricted depending on your concerns. There may be objects that can be unified together.

Meta-leveling is the process of creating this OOSA model and annotating it with all of these descriptions. Ideally, you do all this in your head without relying on paper. Or even conscious thought. So if you're talking about some objects in the system with someone but one of the other objects in the completed model is more worthy of attention and consideration then shifting the conversation to those other objects is said to be meta-leveling. The beginning of this essay is a good example. I had no outline nor any plan, the shift just popped up from my subconscious.

What Meta-Leveling Is For

Meta-leveling is known as Judgement in Bloom's original taxonomy of cognition. It is the highest form of cognition, one which not all people are capable of. It is also known as Evaluation. Judgement is the capacity to distinguish not just right and wrong (fitness to a predetermined goal) but good and evil (determining the goals themselves). Strictly speaking, judgement is broader than determining good and evil. It's just that

Eliezer Yudkowsky makes a big deal of recursion. In planning, recursion is not just considering your goals and plans, but the other players' goals and plans. And in double recursion, you assume that the other players have considered your goals and plans, so you account for that as well. Well, meta-leveling is so much more powerful than recursion that it makes recursion look like a weak pathetic thing.

After all, meta-leveling was the crucial step required to go from playing a game using rules to playing against the other players. Recursion is nothing compared to meta-leveling since it stays on the same level always. Eliezer Yudkowsy harps on recursion because he is incapable of meta-leveling, because he is incapable of synthesis.

By meta-leveling the first time you go from playing the pieces of the game, to playing the players in the game. By meta-leveling a second time, you change the game's rules, outcomes and players entirely. It's like going from playing against your opponent in chess, to playing 3 dimensional fantasy chess where the winners are the best 3 cooperators out of 5 players.

Meta-Meta-Leveling

Meta-leveling twice in a row is called transcending. The first meta-leveling step gave you a model of the system and identified its most important elements. The second meta-leveling step gives you all the ways this system can evolve in future, all the forces that direct its evolution, and the entire space of possibilities for you to redesign the system. Transcending a system means to redesign its entire architecture so that it is no longer recognizable as the original system. It is not an improved system, it is radically different and better.

On reflection, my definition of meta-leveling isn't nearly as formal as I'd like. Meta-leveling is not just creating a model, it's annotating it. Doing it a second time is creating a super-model and annotating that. I didn't make this correspondence explicit enough. I also didn't point out that every time you model (or meta-level) you make things more generic, more abstract. Now there are multiple types of super-models but this is exactly as it should be since there are multiple aspects to any system. Every real system admits to multiple models, and every model admits to multiple super-models. Mathematicians ought to be very familiar with this.

In particular, if you create a model in the OOSA style then the OOSA book is one possible super-model. It's not a very interesting super-model (or form of transcending) so don't waste your time on it. If you didn't use the OOSA style but just did it in your head, then a model of your mind is the super-model that replaces the OOSA book (and a theory of the human mind replaces the endnotes of the OOSA book). That's at least more interesting than the book. What I described at the beginning of this section is a reliably interesting type of super-model for a systems designer.

It now seems dubious to me that there can be more than two types of meta-leveling. The first goes upwards to the conceptual space. The second goes upwards to the realization that contains the concept. What else can there be?

Meta-Meta-Meta-Leveling

By meta-leveling three times in a row, you leave the system entirely behind you to enter into the realm of generic systems design. If the level is chess, the meta-level is a rulebook on chess and transcending is fantasy cooperative chess, then meta**3 is talking about the nature of meta-leveling and how important it is for systems design. In other words, this blog post.

Which reminds me, meta-leveling and transcending are the #1 and #2 tools of any systems designer. If you can't do them then don't even bother. Another crucial tool is empathy. Now, the really funny thing is that empathy's formal definition is: the capacity for formation of other-identities (to complement self-identity). Psychopaths are incapable of this, probably because they lack a crucial form of synthesis.

Multi-Leveling

Now what makes this funny is that formation of identities for others is ... meta-leveling. What Dabrowski calls "multi-leveling" (formation of a complex and utterly accurate self-identity) is ... meta-leveling your own mind. Empathy is just ... meta-leveling other people's minds. So you see, the top three tools of any systems designer are meta-leveling any system, meta-leveling twice in a row, and meta-leveling human minds. Hmm, I sense a pattern here. It's almost like meta-leveling is important.

Incidentally, Dabrowski was incapable of multi-leveling or meta-leveling, which is why he didn't have any insights into the process. He never realized that multi-leveling was meta-circular (the whole of the meta-level exists as a subpart inside of the level it describes) or that it was related to consciousness (which is also meta-circular). In fact, he never understood multi-leveling as the formation of a complex and accurate self-identity. Beyond identifying that the process existed and that it had something to do with ethics and integrity, he was in the dark about it.

Dabrowski also made up the crappiest theories about the nature of Development Potential (people who can multi-level). But his estimation of less than 10% of the general population capable of multi-leveling sounds about right. Of those 10% less than one tenth are naturally prone to multi-leveling because they use their synthesis more heavily than their analysis. Synthesis is what drives the process after all, while analysis just keeps it in check. These one or two percent of the population will try to meta-level everything they come across.

Who Can Meta-Level?

It's not every person that can meta-level. The process can be described so that any person capable of logic will be able to follow it, but it takes synthesis (creativity) to actually do it. Engineers and mere programmers for instance, will never be able to meta-level. So why bother describing it? So that I can say in your face you pretentious assholes! Because they claim to be able to do synthesis and the truth is, they can't.

Meta-leveling is the province of people capable of both synthesis and analysis. It takes synthesis to create the original concepts and it takes analysis for those concepts to be both correct and also to keep the meta-level strictly separate from the level. People lacking in logic are prone to thinking the map is the same as the system it describes, that by changing the map, they change how the system works. This is literal magical thinking.

But let's set aside the pretentious fuckers who can't meta-level but desperately want to be thought of as just as good as those who can. For those who possess both analysis and synthesis, and thus CAN meta-level, the whole process of meta-leveling is something that can be learned and practiced.

Skill and Talent

Of course, a person will show skill at meta-leveling only when they can do it subconsciously. When they have no need to draw out the diagrams on paper at all. This is why I said UML software is worthless. If you need computer software to help you meta-level, you're hopelessly incompetent. And then of course there is the question of talent. Let's say that a person shows talent only if they're able to meta-level subconsciously before ever learning to do it consciously.

If you're able to skim the first couple chapters of Object Oriented Systems Analysis by Embley then flip to the endnotes (where they have a formal OOSA model of the OOSA modeling formalism) and make sense of them then congrats, you've got talent. If you're able to read that book and this article, then think back to how you were meta-leveling years ago as an adolescent, then congrats you've definitely got talent.

And if you haven't got talent at it, then go back and reread the previous section where I go on about how the overwhelming majority of people will never do it in their lives and couldn't do it even if there were a loaded gun stuck to their heads and their lives depended on it. Be glad that you can do it at all. Be glad you can learn. Be glad and appreciate your cognitive gifts.

And if you can't meta-level at all? Fuck off.

"Time, are you saying Ni's can't meta?"

They can. The process is simply might be different.

Ne (deductive reasoning), Ni (inductive reasoning)

I have very little understanding of the latter.

 

[Absurdity]

This guy is a raging dickhead.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This guy is a raging dickhead.

Ego =/= validity

 

[redbaron]

Raging dickhead indeed.

 

[Pizzabeak]

There's a difference between knowing about something and knowing something on a slightly more knowledgeable level than just knowing about it. "Have you heard of Virginia Woolf?" "Yeah.. She did, like, Orlando right?" "Have you read it?" "No..."

 

[TimeAsylums]

[edited around by TA]

knowing something on a slightly more knowledgeable level > knowing about something

meta (levels)

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Can't you shorten this?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Can't you shorten this?

Can I? Yes

Will I? No eventually, see note at bottom

it's all fully relevant


Note: at a later time, I might formally structure his "how to meta" quote into a shorter, more compact, less brash form.

 

[Absurdity]

Ego =/= validity

The ego actively obscures the point.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The ego actively obscures the point.

If you want to believe so/if you perceive it that way, sure.

To me, it never does.

That is, to me, it's relatively/rather easy/simple to separate the information from whatever ego is saying it.

e.g.,

forever a great (fictional) example, House -> ego =/= validity

I don't care/it bothers me zero if someone is egotistical or modest, all that matters is whether they are correct or incorrect, whether they are valid or not. Ego is entirely and completely irrelevant.

Whether you're a pretentious, condescending dick-wad, or whether you're entirely modest, or a rug, the only relevant question is

"are you right or not?"

 

[Brontosaurie]

that kulisz dude has to formally define his pursuit as either some leisure fucking pwning or sincere trying to convey a message. excess cursing has no place in the latter, and big words has no place in the former.

btw he's likely an ENTJ

 

[TimeAsylums]

ENTJ

First guess^

Second ENTP

>>>

leisure fucking pwning or sincere trying to convey a message

y not both,

also I disagree with "big words having no place in leisure pwning."

 

[Brontosaurie]

apply "y not both" to all his proposed distinctions aswell.

 

[TimeAsylums]

apply "y not both" to all his proposed distinctions aswell.

...such as?

 

[Brontosaurie]

such as what the whole blogpost is about

what is meta and meta-meta

 

[Brontosaurie]

lol "reliably interesting" cringiest wording ever

 

[Black Rose]

I don't do it all the time but when I was 12 was when I first got interested in A.I.

Spoiler

It seems that Game theory would be where first level meet analysis. The synthesis would be all possible games built into each other.

It is difficult to know via analysis Ti for INFJ. Usually we use Ni-Fe to tell when someone is full of bullshit. In this way we gather the best ideas and apply them to annotation Ti subconsciously.

To close the loop on multi leveling with your own mind as the choice for looking at alternative pathways reminds me of the Game (knights of the old republic 2) where being a Jedi means sacrificing even being acknowledged as a Jedi to fight against hypocrisy. Becoming an outcast among the Jedi to live the true spirit of Jedism.

@TimeAsylums

Where do you go once your self identity becomes meta in purpose?

 

[Latte]

He did have some raging dickhead similar flavor in how he presented it, but he's right nonetheless where it matters. There's no way to get around the validity of the existence of this cognitive and mathematical aspect of reality, as it is even more basic/fundamental(meta) than set theory. I liked reading this article.

He's probably carrying a lot of baggage about being shit on by people who misunderstand what he means (not just regarding this), while trying to reason with them until he finally decided to just be asshole'ish to get people who don't understand to back off, with some sense of revenge/power/amusement delight at the expectation of them being upset.

It can be difficult not to have some bitter periods in life if subjected to having to deal with people who can't comprehend a great deal of one's arguments or explanations, but nonetheless have power over oneself and prefer to trust their own judgements. Like parents, teachers, medical staff and also those who affect one's life indirectly.

Anyhow, his disposition does seem to influence how he writes things in a way that could hypothetically have yielded a text from which the core meaning is harder to derive than if this influence on explanation formation was lower. This tangential topic is not very important though.

Edit Adding: I think what he refers to as subconscious metaleveling should be regarded as higher order subconscious metaleveling because if there is a complete lack of metaleveling in a brain, it can't really develop. Not even for futbol.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Where do you go once your self identity becomes meta in purpose?

I know I'm already going to get a lot of shit for this, but this is what THD and I call

Ego Death, it's nothing spectacular, and IRL has no functional meaning,

tl;dr

it doesn't make a difference regarding IRL matters, you just continue on.

 

[TimeAsylums]

There's no way to get around the validity of the existence of this cognitive and mathematical aspect of reality. I liked reading this article.

Finding agreement reality (aside from THD & RK) for once is nice...

We are also in agreement about the other possibilities you wrote about, but I'm more happy that you found use in the article. I would encourage you to check out everything else on his blog (yes, it will be full of more ego/brash language), but if you saw use in this, it is possible you may see the others.

I think what he refers to as subconscious metaleveling should be regarded as higher order subconscious metaleveling because if there is a complete lack of metaleveling in a brain, it can't really develop.

I have discussed this with him, and what it comes to is simply the definitions of sub/unconscious. If you define conscious recursively using "consciousness," as the base, we simply define the sub/unconscous as the...non-conscious. That is, no "magic," about it, it's still a part of the brain.

If that^ doesn't make sense to you, it would be helpful to understand his usage of "synthesis (mbti intuition)," but the same definition of consciousness and non-consciousness as stated above.

 

[Latte]

Ah, I see. I was thinking about subconscious as containing non-conscious, so yes, definition disparity enabled me to misunderstand.

Read some blog posts, even the ones I ultimately wholly disagree with are interesting and though (and partly because) he is often overpolarizing and sometimes strawmanning, the aggressive tone of his posts does kind of "work" and fit his overarching style and themes in the sense that it forces one emotionally into analysis in some capacity.

Also, the extreme positions and characterizations of some kinds of people(mentalities) helps extract the essence of what he argues is bad or good from the examples he uses, which aids comprehension unless one gets bogged down in that it's a stereotype or something worse, which is besides what points he tries to make.

 

[TimeAsylums]

forces one emotionally into analysis in some capacity.

heh, I do comprehend as to how this could be, but as posted above, the tone does nothing for/to me.

but, even if you do disagree with his posts, I'm glad you comprehend and understand them =

 

[Latte]

it must because you are dead inside

 

[TimeAsylums]

it must because you are dead inside

o gawd my F it hurtz

...

o wait...

...

I dunt even haz access

...

this self-awareness...

what pain


If they give AI emotions, it will surely kill itself (or all humans)...LOL. skynet


cuz I'm on a WM binge

[bimgx=300]http://whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Manhattan-3.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Black Rose]

Spoiler

Multi-Leveling

Now what makes this funny is that formation of identities for others is ... meta-leveling. What Dabrowski calls "multi-leveling" (formation of a complex and utterly accurate self-identity) is ... meta-leveling your own mind. Empathy is just ... meta-leveling other people's minds. So you see, the top three tools of any systems designer are meta-leveling any system, meta-leveling twice in a row, and meta-leveling human minds. Hmm, I sense a pattern here. It's almost like meta-leveling is important.

Incidentally, Dabrowski was incapable of multi-leveling or meta-leveling, which is why he didn't have any insights into the process. He never realized that multi-leveling was meta-circular (the whole of the meta-level exists as a subpart inside of the level it describes) or that it was related to consciousness (which is also meta-circular). In fact, he never understood multi-leveling as the formation of a complex and accurate self-identity. Beyond identifying that the process existed and that it had something to do with ethics and integrity, he was in the dark about it.

Dabrowski also made up the crappiest theories about the nature of Development Potential (people who can multi-level). But his estimation of less than 10% of the general population capable of multi-leveling sounds about right. Of those 10% less than one tenth are naturally prone to multi-leveling because they use their synthesis more heavily than their analysis. Synthesis is what drives the process after all, while analysis just keeps it in check. These one or two percent of the population will try to meta-level everything they come across.

How does IQ fit into all this?
The top ten percent are above 120, me I am 108.

It could be that the one percent must know exactly what they want in life.
But I am only loosely associating intelligence and identity because my lack of it makes me question what goals I have that are achievable. I am on the threshold of finding a good model of self to strive for when its clear my analysis cant compensate for introverted synthesis only works by being exposed to more novelty yet contemplation does not lend itself completeness only in the final outcome but also in the application. Intelligence is needed for objectifying where effort is made so that doubt in ability should not squelch or exist.

How I know my place in life is abject my skills and relationships to others so finding where I must be in balance to this environment tends to nullify hopes and fears if I can resolve as such. Learning as a pass time to generate novelty or visa verse. I do so in my interactions know when I am being myself let situations subside.

 

[TimeAsylums]

How does IQ fit into all this?

Spoiler

Fyi, the top 2% (98th percentile) are ~132+

If Snafu were here I'd have a 10x easier way and time of explaining this.

But, just keep in mind every point snafu ever made on IQ while i'm replying to this, if you don't know what I'm talking about, just go to his profile and the threads he made on IQ.

[PURE SPECULATION!!!!!! (on my part)]​

Applying to only what IQ tests currently measure, T doms are expected to have the highest capacity of working memory. N doms are expected to have the highest...meta/multi-level. Se majorly helpful with details. On I/E, I functions expected to have a higher level of...focus.

But to remembered is Snafu's points on IQ, the bias, the fact that it doesn't take everything into account, the fact that if you study the structure/questions enough, you can drastically increase your score.

Also, Architect's example on...Mozart? I think it was, on him typing him as an SF, but being fucking literally amazing.

etc.


Basically, assuming you have ~understanding as I do, just read Snafu's posts on IQ, and you can assume/see your own correlations.



+/- Multiple Intelligences correlation with Cognitive Functions and non-correlations.

e.g, Assuming THD/I are both ENTP (take into the variable that per evolution, the MBTI/cognitive structure is not 100% static), THD has a 90% higher capacity for visualtion/visuo-spatial sketchpad than I do, he also has a far higher musical ability than I do. I am retarded in music, not even modestly, but honestly so. I can't learn it. However, I am somewhat far superior in my verbo-linguistic capacity. Differences in culture, SES, epigenetics...everything.

TOO MUCH.

So what the fuck? [idk]

Will one INTPs Ti be stronger than another INTP? of the same IQ? Of different IQs?

Obvious problem being the IQ test (no matter how meta, at this point) was constructed by us hoomanz.

tl;dr

Read SnafuPants' posts/threads on IQ, and figure it out yourself the thread -> http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=12495

^tl;dr

IQ is fucking irrelevant, so don't let it bother you

How I know my place in life

I read somewhere on your posts that you are working on going into programming. Just stick to it.

 

[Spirit]

Time, you crack me up.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Time, you crack me up.

Finding agreement reality for once is nice...

-1, entropy increases


[ Those that believe I am trolling: (+∞); those that have spoken up about the structure and understand I am not even remotely trolling: [~5) ]

an upward battle indeed

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I think you are not trolling, also (in terms of would be trolling) what you do does not even focus my attention to be effective and you also seem commited to the whole thing, good luck.

edit: That doesn't mean that you cannot create bullshit and be self-happy about doing so.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I think you are not trolling, also (in terms of would be trolling) what you do does not even focus my attention to be effective and you also seem commited to the whole thing, good luck.

edit: That doesn't mean that you cannot create bullshit and be self-happy about doing so.

Basically:

[ I don't think you're trolling for...pure reasons alone, even if I don't understand what you're saying. And even if you were trolling, it would be ass-fuck lame trolling ]

or

[ Hey, man, I don't understand whar teh fuckz you are doings, but good job! -pat on the back- ]

entropy stabilizes

entropy increases



Worst part: Those that believe I'm trolling == absolutely 0 criticisms of actual content, simply "lulz he's trolling *ad hominem.*" Those that even take a second to look at the content and information and attempt to comprehend it at least offer criticisms of actual content, whether they agree or not.


Those that would rather judge character x100 >>> than content
Denken ist schwer, darum urteilen die meisten


your ambivalent stance/understanding although not negatively destructive, isn't helpful either.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Worst part: Those that believe I'm trolling == absolutely 0 criticisms of actual content, simply "lulz he's trolling *ad hominem.*" Those that even take a second to look at the content and information and attempt to comprehend it at least offer criticisms of actual content, whether they agree or not.

your ambivalent stance/understanding although not negatively destructive, isn't helpful either.

For the record, it's hard to grasp, it's harder to get you/me to sit still long enough to formally flesh something out, and it's even harder still to make sense of Ne flashinations if you're just watching from the sidelines.

Ambivalence is the best anyone else can do at this point, imho. Don't let RK's raging dickhead syndrome rub off on you (thus driving off resources in ignorance).

 

[Black Rose]

Something I shared with TheHabitatDoctor VM

Reading snafu my g loaded scores would put me at 115. I'm not above you just counter your opposite Ni - Ne. With this setting I could be self exemplifying all that I know into cohesion. Well you gather wide I go deep. It seems that I generate gold nuggets occasionally well you do so by patterns I could not make in abundance.

ENTP both have Ne and Ti
This is where they must follow every path and validate it.
INFJ with Ni-Ti look at the world and knows when a path contradicts or correlates the total architecture plan.

Both are needed as one prunes and grows well the other directs them to the proper information to be evaluated.

Meta wide Meta deep

 

[TimeAsylums]

it is even more basic/fundamental(meta) than set theory

Latte mentioned set theory.

I should also mention anyone familiar with Chomsky Hierarchies (à la Noam Chomsky) should also understand what meta is.

Meta is simply a hierarchy on a hierarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Meta is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

Taken from Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind; on the Neocortex's hierarchy of pattern recognizers

the basic mechanism of going up a hierarchy of pattern recognizers in which each higher conceptual level represents a more abstract and more integrated concept remains valid.

But WHY meta? Continued from Kurzweil

The flow of information downward is even greater, as each activated level of recognized pattern sends predictions to the next lower-level pattern recognizer of what it is likely to be encountering next.

If super(meta)structure is known, infrastructure can be analyzed easily.

Meta is a simple concept. The higher, more abstracting, more conceptual, the higher the meta.

/

The point of OP is formally learning how to recognize and attain a higher level of abstraction and conceptualization (meta), an abstract order of magnitude, if you will [circumflex/caret "^"].

 

[Absurdity]

This article by Manuel DeLanda seems highly relevant.

Before returning to our discussion of agent-based interfaces, there is one more point that needs to be stressed. As both Simon and Deleuze and Guattari emphasize, the dichotomy between bureaucracies and markets, or to use the terms that I prefer, between hierarchies and meshworks, should be understood in purely relative terms. In the first place, in reality it is hard to find pure cases of these two structures: even the most goal-oriented organization will still show some drift in its growth and development, and most markets even in small towns contain some hierarchical elements, even if it is just the local wholesaler which manipulates prices by dumping (or withdrawing) large amounts of a product on (or from) the market. Moreover, hierarchies give rise to meshworks and meshworks to hierarchies. Thus, when several bureaucracies coexist (governmental, academic, ecclesiastic), and in the absence of a super-hierarchy to coordinate their interactions, the whole set of institutions will tend to form a meshwork of hierarchies, articulated mostly through local and temporary links. Similarly, as local markets grow in size, as in those gigantic fairs which have taken place periodically since the Middle Ages, they give rise to commercial hierarchies, with a money market on top, a luxury goods market underneath and, after several layers, a grain market at the bottom. A real society, then, is made of complex and changing mixtures of these two types of structure, and only in a few cases it will be easy to decide to what type a given institution belongs.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This article by Manuel DeLanda seems highly relevant.

Precisely. One could also search for " metacircularity (Klein), http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metacircularity " or meta dealing with Quine and Hofstadter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

 

[TimeAsylums]

As I have already seperated RK's two types of Thinking, and related it to MBTI easily, I have now also related his two types of synthesis to the MBTI intuition, whereas i could not differentiate before, I can now,

primarily thanks to Latte

with the better formal definitions of "order of magnitude/inductive reasoning= Ni," "parameters/deductive reasoning=Ne," it is obvious you need both.

RK was confused on how synthesis moved both vertically and horizontally, following the above and beneath definitons,
Ne is the horizontal synthesis
and Ni is the vertical synthesis

Which is why when some Ni (INJ) says something truly unique or original, it is astounding and blows you out of the water. The orders of magnitude.

If you go wide, all you will have is a two dimensional surface, no matter how wide it is
If you can turn this three dimensional, add the depth/orders of magnitude, then you have truly something you can work with, make sure that all the pieces are logical, and then formally structure it.

beautiful essentially, that's the meta-leveling, informally.



Basically,


Individuate, actualize, synthesize, analyze

everything mthrfckers.


From Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind

The neocortex is organized with linear sequences of steps in each pattern, which means that exponential thinking does not come naturally to us

There is a dramatic difference between linear progressions and exponential progressions (forty steps is forty steps linearly, but exponentially is a trillion)


We have to train ourselves to think exponentially

you need all the functions you can get yer hands on, and then actually have to think

FIN

//out