"Commons and Richards’ (1984) General Model of Hierarchical
Complexity, for instance, includes stages of metasystematic and
cross-paradigmatic reasoning in its scheme. However, the higher stages
in this latter model remain wedded to symbolic codification. Complex
cognitive behavior is represented as mathematical formulas (operations
upon operations upon operations - almost ad infinitum). Purely cognitive
models (Commons and Truedeau, 1994; Stein, in progress), for instance,
do not realize and/or acknowledge the incommensurability between symbol
and that which is symbolized. Their creators do not recognize the limits
of rational analysis and of symbolic representation, and thus, they
cannot discover the hidden assumptions and paradoxes that they enact in
their models" (10).
And from this post, from Cook-Greuter's ITC '13 paper:
"I suggest that a more complex view must include notions of fundamental 'uncertainty', existential paradox, and the nature of interdependent polar opposites as a basis for making its claims. In terms of its understanding of humans, integral evolutionary assertions sound more as coming from a formal operational, self-authoring, analytical, and future-focused mindset than a truly second-tier one despite 'postconventional' content and worldcentric values" (17-18).
And from this post, from Cook-Greuter's ITC '13 paper:
"I suggest that a more complex view must include notions of fundamental 'uncertainty', existential paradox, and the nature of interdependent polar opposites as a basis for making its claims. In terms of its understanding of humans, integral evolutionary assertions sound more as coming from a formal operational, self-authoring, analytical, and future-focused mindset than a truly second-tier one despite 'postconventional' content and worldcentric values" (17-18).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.