4 ms·
At stage 0 it is immediately taken for granted that there is a sense of self, an identity. This is a very bold leap and his entiry theory builds on this.
by serpix 7y ago
At stage 0 it is immediately taken for granted that there is a sense of self, an identity. This is a very bold leap and his entiry theory builds on this.
- dmos62 7y agoWhat Kegan is describing in order 0 is a state where the infant does not have a bound identification, i.e. does not have an identification: she perceives, but doesn't categorise into me/not-me. That's not a sense of self, but just a sense. The "everything sensed is taken to be an extension of an infant" part is a descriptions of how we perceive the infant in that state, not a description of the infant's own reflection. Also, why do you say that the theory builds upon this? I didn't find it to be an important part of the theory.
- samstave 7y agoIm not deriding you, bit let me ask you; how many children do you have. I have three daughters. As infants “they were all the same baby” happy slept through the night no issues etc. They all grew i to their own identities individually over time. Today isactually my you gest daughter’s 6th. Bday. Her older is 8. Her eldest sister will be turnig 15 next month. To watch them develop as their own identities has been an amazing gift of the universe. My eldest is a chanpion horse jumper. My middle is an advanced reader. My youngest is who i think of as my “son” - she is resiliant and tough and she will tackle her sisters while looking me in the eye like “yup im doing this, what are you going to do about it” —- But to describe an infant without some sort of sense of selfe is wrong Sure there is the nurture/nature aspect of raising a human, but if nurture that beautiful innocent tiny human you brought i to the world - their mature will blossom and they will come into being their own human.
- gexla 7y agoThe person you're quoting didn't say the theory was correct or even that he believes the theory. His response was only his interpretation of the theory. If you feel the theory is incorrect, then perhaps take it up with Robert Kegan.
- __MatrixMan__ 7y agoAre you saying that there might one day be evidence for the nonexistence of a sense of self in an infant? I can't even find that kind of evidence for a rock--seems to me that Kegan is safe here.
- cryptozeus 7y agoI didn’t get that from him. In state 0 the baby has sense but not about the self. Imo self is something taught by the society and nurturing so baby would not have that concept.
- AstralStorm 7y agoNot by physics? Things your body can or cannot do, and what things happen to it and are sensed? The distinction made by the stupidest causal temporal relationships from senses with some built-in importance in them.
- red75prime 7y agoParts of the world belonging to a system and other world parts are so different in a system's ability to control them, that I suspect that any system capable of planning, learning and building world-models will naturally divide the world into self and not-self. In state 0 such discovery just hasn't happened yet.
- goatinaboat 7y agoCame here to say the same thing. In Westworld the sense of self is the very last thing to develop in Arnold’s Pyramid/Maze theory.
- dymk 7y agoWestworld is also a fiction that can construct any model it wants regardless of how people actually behave, so I wouldn’t use it as a counter to actual researched theories
- ordu 7y agoI see nothing wrong with it. Theory was not built on the idea of sense of self of a newborn. It was built on senses of self of people of older ages. Then the succession of selves was extrapolated to a newborn. Kegan got a degenerate trivial case, nothing wrong here.