Comments on “Eternalist systems”
Comments are for the page: Eternalist systems
What are examples of systems with complete stance?
Hi David,
It is great that you are pointing out systems that fail but can you also give examples of systems (or systems of systems) which embrace the complete stance?
Many thanks,
Jacob
Meta-systematic
Hi, Jacob,
The complete stance is meta-systematic, so there are no systems that fully exhibit it. This is a fairly subtle topic. There’s an explanation here. That link should jump you into the middle of a web page. If that section of the page doesn’t make sense, reading it from the beginning may help.
Public individuals that are representing the complete stance?
David, many thanks for your comment!
I am familiar with that link but still struggle to see good examples of the complete stance IRL. Many individuals that I assume have very advanced metacognition seem to fall into the “mission” category with an overarching “purpose”. This seems to reject the nebulosity you are talking about. On the other hand, one could say that advanced metacognition allows to fill in the holes of nebulosity such that the overarching purpose is to be understood in lose terms. E.g. Purpose: bringing out the best in everyone -> I still need to do human (non-direct-purpose) things like sleeping, going to toilet, do joyful things to support myself in acting out the purpose.
Anyway, I am curious to hear your thoughts on it and wonder if you could point out some individuals that both flourish and act from the complete stance?
Many thanks
Jacob
Fantastic
This is great stuff!