Type 1 seems to be describing what I’d call a “structure” which is another way of talking about a pattern but in a certain abstract sense. For example, consider the classic mathematician joke about topologists not being able to distinguish a donut from a coffee cup because they have the same topological genus (at least, idealized donuts and coffee cups do), genus-1.
Type 2 seems to be describing what I’d call a “system”, i.e. multiple objects in relation with each other coming together to form a new object at a different level of abstraction.
I almost agree with your Type 2 = “system”, replace [at a different level of abstraction] with [in a different model]. Going from quarks to atoms to chairs would be different levels of abstraction, yes, but I’m trying to point at a an even broader comparison with “system” being just a subset.
For example, I could describe the object “apple” using physics, chemistry, language, and photography. Comparing atoms with words with pixels wouldn’t be just varying abstractions, at least in my understanding of the word abstractions.
I’ve read your article, and thoroughly enjoyed the topic you were addressing directly. I believe you linked it for the similarity between “multiple objects in relation form a new object at a different level of abstraction” and progressing through each Kegan stage, is that correct?
Type 1 seems to be describing what I’d call a “structure” which is another way of talking about a pattern but in a certain abstract sense. For example, consider the classic mathematician joke about topologists not being able to distinguish a donut from a coffee cup because they have the same topological genus (at least, idealized donuts and coffee cups do), genus-1.
Type 2 seems to be describing what I’d call a “system”, i.e. multiple objects in relation with each other coming together to form a new object at a different level of abstraction.
Although my thinking has certainly evolved a lot since then, I wrote about an issue that required addressing this topic a couple years go, so you might find that interesting even if you’re not so interested in the topic I was addressing directly.
I almost agree with your Type 2 = “system”, replace [at a different level of abstraction] with [in a different model]. Going from quarks to atoms to chairs would be different levels of abstraction, yes, but I’m trying to point at a an even broader comparison with “system” being just a subset.
For example, I could describe the object “apple” using physics, chemistry, language, and photography. Comparing atoms with words with pixels wouldn’t be just varying abstractions, at least in my understanding of the word abstractions.
I’ve read your article, and thoroughly enjoyed the topic you were addressing directly. I believe you linked it for the similarity between “multiple objects in relation form a new object at a different level of abstraction” and progressing through each Kegan stage, is that correct?