If postmodernism favored deconstructing wholes and then putting the resulting parts in zero-sum conflict with one another — a process generally referred to as “dialectics” — metamodernism focuses instead on dialogue, collaboration, simultaneity, and “generative paradox” (this last being the idea that combining things which seem impossible to combine is an act of meaningful creation, not anarchic destruction).
If you take Internal Double Crux as an example, it’s about creating dialogue between different mental parts. You want the parts to collaborate to create a solution but the point isn’t to destroy any of the involved parts and make them obsolate.
In Internal Double Crux neither of the two parts gets deconstructed.
In the postmodernist deconstructivism on the other hand you deconstruct a part in the hope of making it obsolate. In deconstructivist dialog you find the goal of desconstructing system like capitalism and patriarchy and make them obsolate.
There are ideas that are sufficiently advanced that it’s not easy to understand by people without any background to the subject. That’s easy to accept in a case like advanced math but the same also goes for other subjects where people put in work to develop concepts.
This reminds me, I was sort of sad when I saw the original double crux post. The method itself is fine, but I was sad that it took years for rationalists to reinvent the Hegelian dialectic. Makes you wonder what other well known methods are being ignored because they’re not packaged in rationalist language.
That comment is surprising to me. I didn’t understand the Hegelian dialectic about talking to internal parts. Which authors do describe the Hegelian dialectic as part work?
I’m not aware of anyone describing dialectic in that way. I would instead say that the double crux seems to me a more highly specified version of the dialectical method with specific instructions on how to carry it out. To be fair this is arguably a useful invention since it’s helping people carry out dialectics in a particular way at least rather than not at all.
There are plenty of other techniques for dealing with internal parts. To the extend that CFAR reinvented the wheel I think it makes more sense to focus on other parts work.
NLP has 6-step reframing. Family systems therapy has it’s own methods. Even older paradigms like various forms of shamanism have their own methods for doing part work.
Those techniques are direct competitors to Internal Double Crux and worthy to be compared to it for the applications of the technique.
If you can’t beat them, join them.
To me that sentence is quite clear.
If you take Internal Double Crux as an example, it’s about creating dialogue between different mental parts. You want the parts to collaborate to create a solution but the point isn’t to destroy any of the involved parts and make them obsolate. In Internal Double Crux neither of the two parts gets deconstructed.
In the postmodernist deconstructivism on the other hand you deconstruct a part in the hope of making it obsolate. In deconstructivist dialog you find the goal of desconstructing system like capitalism and patriarchy and make them obsolate.
There are ideas that are sufficiently advanced that it’s not easy to understand by people without any background to the subject. That’s easy to accept in a case like advanced math but the same also goes for other subjects where people put in work to develop concepts.
This reminds me, I was sort of sad when I saw the original double crux post. The method itself is fine, but I was sad that it took years for rationalists to reinvent the Hegelian dialectic. Makes you wonder what other well known methods are being ignored because they’re not packaged in rationalist language.
That comment is surprising to me. I didn’t understand the Hegelian dialectic about talking to internal parts. Which authors do describe the Hegelian dialectic as part work?
I’m not aware of anyone describing dialectic in that way. I would instead say that the double crux seems to me a more highly specified version of the dialectical method with specific instructions on how to carry it out. To be fair this is arguably a useful invention since it’s helping people carry out dialectics in a particular way at least rather than not at all.
There are plenty of other techniques for dealing with internal parts. To the extend that CFAR reinvented the wheel I think it makes more sense to focus on other parts work.
NLP has 6-step reframing. Family systems therapy has it’s own methods. Even older paradigms like various forms of shamanism have their own methods for doing part work. Those techniques are direct competitors to Internal Double Crux and worthy to be compared to it for the applications of the technique.
I know, I was making a pun.