TreeJeff

@DocHoliday Thank you again for your insightful comments. Absolutely agree. In recognizing that hedonic adaptation is going to happen when everyone is approaching things from an egoic perspective, it becomes clear that in order to consistently achieve those higher values you mentioned, one must start to detach to reach that potential. Counter-intuitive really. There was definitely some "letting go" that needed to take place in order for me to realize that initially. I think that's probably true. Generally longer-term thinking is more conducive to overall prosperity and incorporating the SD model into that thinking would likely prove useful. It certainly has for me. And I have no doubt that someone at Stage Yellow would do a much better job at making decisions in a position of power. But, I guess that is part of my main question because I would be willing to bet that unless everyone that was being led felt the Stage Yellow leader provided enough value, the Stage Yellow person would not want to lead or have that power over those people. To do otherwise would be antithetical to the Stage Yellow manifestation. Which is likely one of the reasons we don't have a fully actualized Stage Yellow person as a leader in politics. It would seem to me, and I recognize that I'm starting to beat a dead horse here, that someone in Stage Yellow would prefer, IF they could set it up, to specifically not force others to follow. I appreciate your serious consideration of these thoughts and I'm glad I'm not far off the mark. Your point about highly relative rules and laws is probably one of the reasons the current government paradigm isn't working and one of the reasons I believe a Stage Yellow person would not lead those that did not believe in the value of their leadership. I agree that all of this is speculation because all governments are so far from it. However, using it as a model or goal for the future to work toward may be useful. And this is really the fundamental point of my confusion with respect to where my development is on the spiral in general. As I mentioned in my response to Leo: my political perspective could be called voluntaryist, which is another word for libertarian. He said that term and its associated philosophy is textbook Stage Orange. Based on everything I've read about Stage Yellow so far, the philosophy behind libertarianism seems much more in line with it than Stage Orange. All the philosophy really says in lay terms is "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff." A law is "Do this, or else," meaning I will hurt you if you do not comply with me manifesting myself. Seems antithetical to Stage Yellow thinking. Stage Orange wouldn't care as long as they benefited from the law (crony-capitalism). Like Leo mentioned in his Re-contextualizing discussion that the US Constitution needs to be amended to better fit Stage Green. I don't really yet see how that would be any less destructive than the US military attempting to force change in the Middle East. It seems to be the same in principle. There are probably a couple million people in the US that would be so incensed by such changes, that it would lead to some unfortunate circumstances. Force tends to be met with resistance. Better to let everyone progress naturally through the stages through education in my humble opinion. If Cali or Texas vote to secede because one population is majority Stage Green and one is majority Stage Orange and neither wants to be hampered in their development by the others' forceful influence then the Stage Yellow thing to do would probably be to let them go. The Cali population would likely learn the lessons faster to graduate to Stage Yellow and the Texans would likely see some shift to Stage Green. Higher likelihood of less resistance to the changes. It would look something like: Group A with Beliefs/Government A is located in Area A, which is adjacent to Group B with Beliefs/Government B located in Area B and they do the best they can to be tolerant of each other, trade, and live in peace. If you want, check out https://www.seasteading.org/. It is a similar proposal. Not to mention anyone in mostly Stages Blue through Turquoise could be a libertarian, it would just manifest differently: Blue: My religion is more important than your earthly laws. Orange: My materialistic success should not be hampered by others. Green: My social group should not be legally restricted by others. Yellow: Everyone should be able to manifest their highest self as long as it is not at the expense of others, but recognizing it may not always work out. Turquoise: Not sure but probably similar to Yellow. They just would be at peace with everything and manifesting themselves for reality. And maybe at Turquoise all of this breaks down and it doesn't matter. I'm not there yet, and neither is most of humanity. I'm having difficulty seeing that the paradigm I described above is not the next step in human development (Stage Yellow governance). You might imagine that here I am thinking it is a Stage Yellow approach when Leo says it is mostly Orange I have become quite concerned about where I sit. So this is what I am trying to nail down. Sincerely appreciate your thoughts so far.

@Leo Gura

@Xenomorf Thank you for your thoughts and best wishes. It is a tough nut to crack indeed. I like the conclusion you came to. It is similar to my changing thoughts when thinking about moving to a higher stage in SD. I may have found a dynamic principle, which is kind of what I'm attempting to flush out in this thread. I'm certainly finding flexibility and understanding of different perspectives is creating fewer triggering events for me. Thanks again.

@DocHoliday Thanks for the quick response! Is this referring to the empathy formed in Green and sort of what could be considered fundamental needs/wants such as love, survival, and freedom of many stripes such as no fear of death? It does seem like Yellow embodies some of this for sure, with a little Turquoise thrown in for good measure. I guess one part of my confusion is: How would I know what is best and most appropriate for a group of people? Just do the best I can recognizing that, in all likelihood, I'll be incorrect to a degree? It would seem that if I was incorrect for someone, and it was a situation where I was forcing everyone to comply, then that would be costing those that did not want to comply. I guess this is almost exactly what I am attempting to sort through. If indeed Stage Yellow is against "Do this, or else," which is what a law is (an idea with violent action to back it up), and all perspectives are very much relative, in general government of any non-voluntary form over other people would be for those of Tier 1 stages where they want a requirement of force to either maintain a belief structure, collude with for gains, or save a tree for example. Because some people (individual cases) within the borders of that governed region may not believe in the Westboro Baptist doctrine, be excellent hair stylists but not have the money for a license, or would love to save the tree but the firewood is the only heat source they can afford. It would be an added cost to them all if forced to do those things. Or am I way off?

Good day all. I'm legitimately curious about this since I'm trying to sort out a value or two, and not just attempting to cause a stir: It was my understanding that Stage Yellow is looking to embrace solving challenging problems without the expense of others. If someone like our President (or any government entity for that matter) desires to improve the lives of others as maybe his or her life purpose, and he does so through government policy, at some point, wouldn't that be costly to others? Sort of "Do this or else." The characteristics of the people being forced (race, sexual orientation, wealth status, whatever) doesn't matter. There is still an idea, his or her idea (facts), being implemented through force, even though maybe that idea supported the whole. And even the idea of supporting the whole is relative. It would seem to me that a Stage Yellow person would desire to teach the benefits of a concept and support the whole through voluntary interaction, rather than force it on people. But, they would also understand that not everyone would agree with said idea, INCLUDING the umbrella idea I just mentioned of voluntary interaction rather than force. Stage Yellow would accept that and take action accordingly, whatever that may be (like Leo's preventing Neo-Nazis from storming through Turquoise Town), to do their best to manifest themselves within that environment, while also keeping others in mind. I assume I am just not getting it or maybe defining terms differently than the model intended. Where is my misunderstanding or confusion? I'd be grateful for any thoughts you may have. Thank you!

@Elisabeth Thank you so much for your open-minded, honest response. Quite insightful. I can certainly see libertarianism being considered a mix of orange and green. And I think on a practical level, it probably often manifests in the ways you describe with some folks focusing on more green vs. orange and vice-versa. I will also admit that I am not sure how it would look from Stage Yellow because I'm not sure I fully understand Yellow yet. The voluntaryist position just seemed to have quite a few similarities to Yellow when I was reviewing it on the site from which Leo sourced his information. For example: World View: The world is a complex, self-organizing, natural system that requires integral solutions. Life Motto: “I manifest myself, but not at the cost of others.” Life Philosophy: I am searching for freedom and embrace (integral) space and complexity. The "World View" is essentially a free market of ideas, which a libertarian would praise. I guess it is unclear to me though the result the SD model ultimately shows the universe/humanity is achieving (probably because I'm not in turquoise) and how libertarianism itself would limit said result. That's not a criticism of your statement. I just legitimately do not understand the full SD model yet I think. I really liked your formulation. I think it made some great points. My thoughts: The state is certainly one way to control red. This would probably be considered self-defense though depending on the entities involved. Libertarians do not necessarily advocate for pacifism, though some are. Red is kind of the last color on the spectrum where a libertarian philosophy is not "compatible" because there is inherent physical aggression on the part of those entities primarily in Stage Red, though it is accepted as a reality in the world. Excesses of other colors could certainly be controlled through the state (using physical pain or death itself), and maybe that is the most effective means a group of people come up with for a given scenario. Education, social and financial ostracism, and secession could also be attempted first. Your description of Blue made me lol. Not because I think it's incorrect, but because I think there is a lot of truth to it. Part of the existential crisis and human condition. Libertarianism allows for religion for a set of rules where people can find some guidance. But I agree, there are some challenges that may arise depending on the guidance. I think though the view many people probably watching Leo's videos have on moral relativism would apply here and deem it as just...there. Yes, agreed on Orange. As mentioned above, a libertarian would want to try education, social and financial ostracism, and secession first, which may or may not work in specific circumstances. Yes, agreed on Green as well. I, and many other libertarians I would imagine, have no illusions about the creation of some utopia where everyone has food through charity, etc. Some do just wave their hand though and say that it will be taken care of. Your excellent statement about the green-yellow society I think is exactly my point for authoring my post. Again, no illusions that the current state of humanity as a whole would probably not fair well in a pure voluntaryist paradigm. And there is a great deal of debate about how to handle a host of complicated issues. It would probably take at least a green-yellow society to have it work smoothly. That is the reason there is emphasis on non-aggression, secession, and education in libertarianism, to hopefully raise awareness of others to improve their situations and mindsets to reach these stages. As I mentioned, it is simply a moral framework into which Blue through Turquoise could fit. And I think the narrow way Leo described the term itself and kind of pigeon-holed the philosophy to primarily Stage Orange was potentially doing it a disservice and perpetuates the negative connotations associated with it. I don't hold it against him. Just want to give a different perspective from someone else who has studied the philosophy quite a bit. Thanks again.

@jpcatrib Thank you for your thoughtful response. My perception of the movement in the US is that it is mixed between all of the stages >=Blue similar to your recent thoughts about the term encompassing many colors of the spectrum. But there probably is a decent fraction who focus on Stage Orange pursuits and follow the Randian ideals. I am hopeful that it will make progress in Brazil to some higher-level thinking because it seems to have here to a degree. I agree entirely regarding the libertarian/socialist views on problems in society. Both mean well for the most part. Congratulations on your decision to resign from your position. The cognitive dissonance and living inauthentically must be quite challenging. I truly hope it works out for you. I agree the Stage Orange thing to do would be to stay with the position to get ahead further, consequences be damned, while your new goal does have shades of green. Any thoughts on how you would like to change the world?

Good day all. I just finished watching the Stage Orange video, and found it very informative. I was admittedly and surprisingly triggered some (which I want to work on :-) ) when libertarianism was mentioned in some contexts. Much like jpcatrib's post about BitCoin, I am attempting to avoid political debate or activism, but more interested in where my current thinking fits on the SD spectrum. So maybe I'm more orange than I thought, and I certainly don't speak for all liberty-minded individuals, but I think perhaps a better term to use in the discussion might have been Objectivism or libertarianism with a focus on unrestrained profit pursuits. It is true that within the umbrella of libertarianism, there are folks that subscribe to the more Randian aspects of the philosophy. I could be wrong, but I think that impression of libertarianism as a whole is an outdated, media-influenced perspective and the term is a bit misrepresented in the video and does not encompass the current state of libertarianism in the US, or really, around the world. Libertarianism itself does not advocate for unrestrained pursuit of profits at the expense of lives and the environment. It is a moral framework in which individuals could CHOOSE that focus. And that is not the same thing, in my opinion, and it would probably be more in line with truth to not state it as such. Like I was just at a libertarian event and there were MANY "hippies" present and folks advocating for holistic alternative solutions to health, education, environment, etc. Also, some of the examples used in the video to show the limits of capitalism seemed to be of CRONY capitalism, which is due to both capitalists AND the government combined. Many libertarians fully understand capitalism itself will not solve all of the problems in the world and some troubling consequences could arise. However, many of these troubles are mainly due to all of the mindsets Leo is helping people fix with the channel. Voluntaryism is a tool that, in the hands of those that are not considering their actions toward the environment or other people, can have negative results for others. However, in the hands of individuals that truly care about humanity, nature, or the universe as a whole, it can be a huge benefit to not have government restrictions that potentially quell the improvement of lives. I think some libertarians understand that no man is an island and it takes a community at times. A libertarian doesn't necessarily desire capitalism for the thrill of competition, but because we want everyone to have the opportunity to live their life according to their values to the best of their ability, if they even want to. And for those that are unable to do so because of some challenge they have, then it is important to assist them when feasible. I want everyone to have liberty even if it means they do better than me. It does not matter who they are: gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, black, white. The general idea is that the state is force and therefore immoral. Now, I know that this is just a libertarian's way of thinking and from a universal perspective, morals are relativistic, but work with me here. :-) Essentially we do not want to stop others from living the way they want to in a section of the universe and we'd be happy to interact with them authentically without aggression, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Coming at this from a consciousness or relativistic angle where everyone has their own, perhaps deterministic, perspective, it is not our job to dictate to others how to live their lives and each person will have a different means of authentically "doing their thing." That sounds more yellow to me than orange, but I may be overestimating where that sort of philosophy sits on the spectrum. The idea would be to raise consciousness and live in a society such that we do NOT do the crappy things through capitalism mentioned in the video to a large degree and therefore don't need the state or any other type of "force" placed on people to keep them restrained. "With great freedom comes great responsibility" sort of thing. There are others that can probably articulate all of this better than me like Derrick Broze of the Conscious Resistance Network or Jeff Berwick of Anarchast. I guess I feel it is unfortunate that libertarianism receives so much outright dismissal and maybe some mischaracterization. Perhaps if folks realized that many of the people that identify as libertarian or voluntaryist can have views similar to those in several of the SD stages all just simply without the force of the state it may help to improve the perception of the term "libertarianism." These could include hardcore religious in blue, pursuit of success in orange, extremely charitable as in green, maybe what you'd call enlightened self-interest in yellow, and truly spiritual and universally-oriented in turquoise. All of that fits under the umbrella. Be curious to hear some thoughts on this. Are we still talking about mostly Stage Orange if coming at libertarianism from the aforementioned angles and intentions? Thanks for any insight!