Meta-rationality and multi-rationality
Meta-rationality is not a skill or set of skills, but a radical perspectival shift. So, using the phrase "meta-rationality skills" risks trying to identify and learn the skills propositionally.
On the other hand, there are meta-rationality-specific skills, although they have no definite methods and are highly nebulous. And, it may be useful to emphasize those when first introducing meta-rationality, because it provides an on-ramp for those who are comfortable with the skills-learning orientation of rationality. Or, it may be misleading. It's an empirical question which approach is better pedagogy—for which we won't have good data any time soon, so I'm just doing both.
My own understanding of this has evolved some over the past few years, partly shaped by Charlie's somewhat different path into the same material. Charlie makes a distinction between what I'm tentatively calling "multi-systematicity" versus "meta-systematicity.”
In multi-systematicity, you gain the ability to hold several systems as objects, and to apply them simultaneously within a single situation even if they contradict each other. However, one's activity on them remains "instrumental," and the form of self-organization is not necessarily radically different than in systematicity. The self-other boundary may still be quite definite.
In meta-systematicity, one retains the ability to orient to systems and to operate both within and on them, but it's no longer the default. You "become the space" that encompasses all things, among which happen to be ladybugs, melodic hooks, and systems. Systems—including self-systems—have no special status. The self-other boundary becomes much more nebulous (although it doesn't disappear; this is not All Is One monism). From an instrumental point of view, you can act far outside what you had thought of as "self" (hence, "conjuration"). From an ego point of view, "my mental contents" are no longer separate from everything else, so what happens everywhere is part of "me."
These are plausibly distinct and sequential stages. Susan Cook-Greuter's developmental stage theory does separate them as such.
This is very difficult to explain, partly because it sounds mystical, which it's not. Also, I don't think I fully understand it yet. I hope to write about it later this year, though!
