Carl-Richard

Last year, they removed the restrictions in the summer and reinstated them right before Halloween. Let's see how it goes this time.

It's radical, anarchistic Green. The idea of "decolonization" with respect to the intellectual traditions is a postmodern idea that has some validity. Reductionism is an example of the crique-worthy aspects of Western thought which has been used to delegitimize non-Western value systems.

Duh I wouldn't be so concerned about just one lifetime. Some awakened masters have been on the path for thousands of years

There is an interesting link between between a construct-aware epistemology, mysticism and systems thinking that I think is not much emphasized by people like Ken Wilber who emphasize the distinction between growing up and waking up. It's no coincidence that Fritjof Capra saw the link between non-duality and QM, was inspired by holistic philosophers like Thomas Kuhn and Gregory Bateson, and then went on to revolutionize systems thinking as a field, just like it's no coincidence that people who are averse to these ideas are also averse to systems thinking. Systems thinking emphasizes the ramifications of relationality/relativity, like the relationship between the observer and the observed in QM, the relationship between the map and the territory in metaphysics, between historical context and scientific discoveries, and the relationship between two dualities in a whole (yin-yan). It's not that mysticism is the whole story (like Ken Wilber points out with pre-rational mysticism), but it's that the marriage of mysticism and rationality leads to transrationality, and transrationality puts the rational in context so that one can observe the relationality of it, of how its constructed as a product of relationships, and hence you break into a construct-aware, paradigmatic systems view. In that sense, there does appear to be a connection between growing up and waking up that happens at the cutting edge of rationality (Green) that facilitates a movement into Tier 2. Other than that, a pre-rational mystic is still confined to Tier 1.

Do you count Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg as experts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

I know my experience is closer to my experience

You want this Neutral Monism?

Legendary systems thinker Fritjof Capra https://www.amazon.com/Systems-View-Life-Unifying-Vision/dp/1316616436

That statement makes more sense in a self-contained ecosystem free from human interference, but less when talking about animal agriculture, due to its destablizing effect on ecosystems etc. Besides, ~90% of what warm-blooded animals eat is lost as heat. Whatever they give, they certainly take a lot. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/46%3A_Ecosystems/46.2%3A_Energy_Flow_through_Ecosystems/46.2C%3A_Transfer_of_Energy_between_Trophic_Levels

The difference is that she got to own all of the media for a day. You'll never achieve that by throwing some money at an activist organization

Part 3 will be 10 hours long . Great stuff ?

From another perspective, she invested 30k in socialist activism.

Ooooo Cornel West and Ken Wilber are friends? That might explain why Michael Brooks knew about Integral Theory.

Ah! That makes more sense . If I were to be a bit more accommodating of your model, you can say that in a sense what Orange does is that it recognizes Blue is being a bit too unrelenting in its repression of Red's impulses (the need to dominate, self-assert, enact power over others) and that it opens up and redirects this individualistic energy through these higher Orange principles (allowing the Red component more room). Then, the need to dominate others physically might instead manifest itself as the need to dominate others in the social game (financial status, relationship status etc.), and it justifies this by saying "everybody is free to do what they want as long as they're not infringing on other people's freedoms". Then you have Green that realizes that Orange's definition of freedom is in fact incomplete, as they're denying the collective ramifications of their self-asserting behavior which minimizes the freedom of unprivileged people, and then the pendulum swings back to collectivism again.

I think we agree that all stages retain some aspects of the previous stages within them and that there are other aspects which are emergent (not reducible to earlier aspects). I take more issue with the description that the individualism in Orange is derived from a Red subcomponent. It's not that I think your understanding of SD is inconsistent, but it's rather about the way in which the word "individualism" is used that I think is unclear. Firstly just to clarify, and as you probably know, the individualist/collectivist dichotomy is of course not black-and-white (all the stages have their own expression of each). The issue however is that Beige is an individualistic stage that occurs before Red. Surely, Red must have a Beige subcomponent, but you wouldn't say that Red derives its individualism from Beige. Do you see what I mean? That's why I prefer for clearness sake to just call it "Orange individualism" and "Red individualism", because while they're interrelated with eachother as "individualism", they're not reducible to eachother. Orange individualism is democratic and rational while Red individualism is machivellian and impulsive. Likewise, Beige individualism is primal and instinctive. If you think that I'm the one who is being unclear, I would like to hear exactly how the Red subcomponent creates the individualism of Orange .

Do Afghan refugees have a bad attitude?

How do you get to Orange? Through Blue. In an Orange society, you might not meet a lot of Blue adults, but you will hopefully be surrounded by other children as you grow up and go through the same developmental altitudes together. Your parents will also employ stage-specific techniques throughout your upbringing. You don't discipline an impulsive 3 year old child with rational arguments ("do this, not that, because y reason" - Orange) or even rules ("do this, not that - no reason" - Blue). You have to mirror their developmental stage and be more situational, physical and reactive (clear signals, stern voice, "no!" - Red). A 3 year old doesn't abstract well over time, so giving him rules to follow will not help. In fact, this problem can last well past teenage years even in modern societies. Using reason and following rules requires a certain level of cognitive development, and we all start at the lower stages and go through the higher stages. Red responds to dominance and strength, Blue responds to authority and rules, and Orange responds to logic and reason. For example, Red doesn't care about the authority of the cops (only if they employ a situational display of dominance). Orange understands the utility of the authority of the cops, but it doesn't trust it blindly like Blue does. Each stage is also a reaction to the problematic aspects of the previous stages. Blue is a reaction to the excesses of Red (dominance without constraints leads to chaos) and Orange is a reaction to the excesses of Blue (constraints without reasoning leads to tyranny). When you value reason over tradition/rules, there emerges a new type of individualism which understands the preceding collectivism in a new light, which is why it's not reducible to earlier forms of individualism. Orange is a reaction to Blue and not reducible to Red, because Red doesn't understand Blue.

Orange individualism is a reaction to Blue collectivism. It's not reducible to Red individualism. Red doesn't care about democracy, individual rights, rationality over dogma.

Science as we know it today has its roots in Greek rationalism and the departure from the mythic worldview of tradition, lineage, dogma, stories. The realization was that the stories of the collective are insufficent as sensemaking tools and that reason (rationality) is superior. Reason stands on its own merits, independent of tradition, class or power, and originates within the mind of the individual. It doesn't matter from who's mind it comes from, whether it's a priest or a peasant, as long as it's of sound reasoning. In principle, this dismantled the epistemological monopoly of the Church (while in reality, the Church became the head of the scientific enterprise for the next two millennia), and gave the power to the people. This is why Greek rationality went hand in hand with Greek democracy. That said, the thinkers of Ancient Greece only sowed the seeds for the Orange we see today. It took another 1000 years of medieval squabbles before we finally laid the mythic ghost to rest (meanwhile the same level of dogmatism is still alive and well today within the current scientific institutions). You say you believe the purpose of science is the betterment of the collective, or in other words survival. Well, so was the purpose of religion, myths, stories. Everything humans do is aimed at survival, and humans are innately collectivistic (despite how much libertarians want to deny it), so it's very rare that anybody doesn't act with at least some definition of a collective in mind (be it a severely contracted or expanded form). A businessman will maybe say "I'm doing what is best for my company, my community, the economy", and a scientist will say "I'm doing what is best for my faculty, my university, my field of study". It's nevertheless all self-centered at the end of the day. The businessman is trying to earn money for his family and so is the scientist. Maybe the scientist is working on a cure for cancer or some technology that will save the world, but there will always be a businessman who is also working on getting it out to the public (corporate management, financing research, distribution etc.).

Jordan Belford and Neil deGrasse Tyson both make decisions based on rationality, pragmatism and secular values like democracy, individual rights and liberty. They don't believe in fairies, mysticism or the spiritual importance of religious rituals or following the correct theological tradition, and they look at the world through a realist-materialist lens (the world exists "out there" and is made out of matter). With that said, Jordan Belfort, a white collar criminal, is a caricature of a Orange businessman, so of course Neil deGrasse Tyson comes better off with that comparison. There are different facets to all stages. For example, there is Stage Red business and Stage Red "science" (a better word would be "epistemology"). Orange business expresses a particular set of values (democracy, individual rights, liberty, capitalism) which can be described as individualistic. However, Red is also individualistic, but it has a different flavor ("might makes right", impulsivity over rationality etc.). Orange epistemology is very "scientific", but not just any type of scientific, but a very particular kind, namely positivism, mechanism, reductionism, rationalism; analysis -- understanding things by breaking them into pieces. On the other hand, Tier 2 science is constructivistic, systemic, holistic, integrative; synthesis -- understanding things by looking at the relationships between the pieces.

Joe Rogan is not deeply invested in truth. The context is not compatible.

There is a communication theory course I'm taking that is explictly based on systems thinking and holism, people like Gregory Bateson and Fritjof Capra. The books are in Norwegian though ?

Become a social ecologist and sow the seeds for a new future, but remember that we need Green for fertile soil

This is false. All small selves are fundamentally The Big Self (God). The issue only arises when you create a separation between yourself and other people. All separation is secondary. The fundamental nature of reality is One. All people are imagination, but so are you. When there is no separation, there is no malintent, no hate, no exclusion or deliberate mistreatment, because that would be to mistreat yourself.

Lol sorry, I meant to say "scoring higher/lower than 50% of people means you have a median score", not "scoring 50% higher (...)" . If the answer is still no, then why?