>What is the difference between this and just saying that you have one self-
>consistent world view? I guess it is just a matter of how you articulate
>it. That isn't necessarily a small matter, so perhaps I should drop the
>"just" out of the previous sentence. The act of articulating something,
>tends to be a linear process. Articulating a series of world views that
are >consistent with each other, may be the simplest way to put it for now.
>However, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able construct better
>concepts to compress these understandings in one more simply stated
>world view - leaving it to our minds to "explode" these concepts into their
>full implications and understandings.
>However, if Brodie means that "level 3" folk should be able to hold
>INCONSISTENT world views, then I can only conclude that this is an
>endorsement of irrationality.
Let me propose a puzzle, see if you can make sense of it. (Or if it makes any sense at all for that matter.)
Worldview A works best for achieving result A'. Worldview B works best for achieving result B'. Worldviews A and B are completely inconsistent with one another. You desire both result A' _and_ result B'. Can you get both results? If so, how?
And can you do it without outside observers claiming that you're being irrational or inconsistent?