> But it has left me closer to thinking this integral/metacrisis thing is lacking in substance. Putting this author aside, it seems like many of the folk who talk about this stuff are merely engaging in self-absorbed obscurantism.
I wonder if this statement might simply reflect your ability to understand and steelman other people’s perspectives. Food for thought?!
I don’t want to engage in a point by point rebuttal but just want to encourage you to engage more critically with the assumptions that you bottom out your argument with. All of these can and have been reasonably questioned. In particular, how to think about progress and its relationship to technology and the innocuousness of defining “problems” as decoupled from their particular contexts.
> But it has left me closer to thinking this integral/metacrisis thing is lacking in substance. Putting this author aside, it seems like many of the folk who talk about this stuff are merely engaging in self-absorbed obscurantism.
I wonder if this statement might simply reflect your ability to understand and steelman other people’s perspectives. Food for thought?!
Now this is uncharitable
So, you do it on purpose, not out of inability? Thanks for clarifying.