What are the odds that you, an average dude, is Tier 2? Not very high.

[Davino]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

As another note on this, it's important to understand that people stay holding onto a stage of development because they feel like that stage will empower them more than the latter stages.

It's not true. It's a mistake that people make. But moving beyond the current phase requires a deconstruction and a feeling of losing power to make that transition. And there is a need to grieve the loss of the story that each phase tells.

But with women, very few Green women are truly attached to yoga and innocent hippiness. Most women are attached to the dream of world without oppression and injustice... and a world where women are not oppressed for our gender.

The transition of women from Green to Yellow requires us to face into the wounds of disempowerment from earlier phases... and to sort the wheat from the chaff with regards to the Feminine.

For men, it's about losing the idea of Masculine/male superiority and embracing the Feminine... which men have been told makes them a little bitch and not worthy of women or existence.

So, men's transition from Orange to Green feels disempowering... and women's transition from Green to Yellow/Turquoise brings her right into the raw wounds of historical oppression and rape of the Feminine.

For men, it reads as a loss of a power advantage and an evening of the playing field. For women, it feels like the loss of the newly gained even playing field and a descent into hell.

But when you do let yourself descend into hell, you find a much deeper power than that which is in Green.

Thanks this is very helpful for my contemplations.

[BlessedLion]

On 4/9/2025 at 11:22 PM, Leo Gura said:

Frankly I'm amazed at how much depth each stage has. I keep dipping back into Orange and Green and Yellow and learn more about myself and the mind.

Each color is like its own wellspring.

You gotta stop worrying which stage you're at and just grab insights and lessons from the whole Spiral whenever you can.

It's like a color palette and you are Picasso.

I’ve been really enjoying diving back into Orange recently. Lotta beauty there that I initially labeled as “bad” 

[BlessedLion]

On 4/10/2025 at 0:57 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Tier 2 friends, community, network, business, career,

The irony is that these are Orange metrics of success 

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

The irony is that these are Orange metrics of success 

Yes, as we all know, friends and community are purely an Orange phenomena, and nobody needs to make a living or form ties with people of similar interests.

[Alexop]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you don't know if any celebrity intellectual you haven't personally spoken to is Yellow?

As Leo said, you'll never know for sure. People might hide their real faces or behave in evil ways. Until you know the person personally and see how they interract with others in pressing situations where their patience and felxibility is pushed to the limits you can't make a accurate conclusion. I have no clue how well Leo is treating his girlfriends for example.

I think we should make a distinction between intellectual stage Yellow and behavioral stage Yellow. When shit hits the fan, people regress into monkey behavior.

[Hello from Russia]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He is doing it within an Orange framework, not a Yellow one.

Musk is after personal power. He has an authortarian leadership style which is not aligned with Yellow systemic thinking.

You guys keep confusing exploitation of systems with systems thinking. These are not at all the same thing.

Until Musk gives up his authoritarian leadership style I will not consider him Yellow. And he will never give it up.

What's wrong with having an authortarian leadership if the leader is highly developed? 

Wouldn't more democratic style actually be worse because with it you have to conform more with less conscious and less evolved people? 

Is it really a bad thing if people are ran by one super conscious dude who gets to call all the shots? And he of course would holistically also cater to those people who are less evolved with his policies etc, but from a higher perspective 

[zurew]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You got drunk because alcohol binds to your GABAA receptors, or because it invades all the cells in your body including your brain responsible for movement and higher cognitive functions, or because you wanted to have fun that night, or because you conformed to the social pressure to drink, or because you wanted to numb yourself to emotional pain, etc. 

You can explain it in many ways, and the point of calling it a reduction is that each of the ways are partial and often somewhat unitary (something gets reduced to "one thing"). You take the infinite complexity of reality and reduce it down to a specific structure. Whether or not your reduction base contains many units or notions like top-down causality, there is still a reduction happening.

In that case , you are using reductionism basically as just "explanation".

I take reductionism to be a special position with regards to realness and I also take it as a subset of explanations - where it is an explanation but a specific kind - where the notion of realness is only accounted by fundamental parts (this is where the 'you are just atoms bro' come from) . The idea that" lower levels" can exhaustively explain things that are on the "higher level".

Basically, I  take it to be the rejection of strong emergence , where higher parts have certain causal powers that cant fully be accounted by their lower parts.

 

To me its very clear that if there are two people and if one of them believes in strong emergence and the other doesn't, then calling both of them reductionist would be very misleading.

Edited April 13 by zurew

[zurew]

I will add one more to the necessary conditions - You are not yellow if you don't look like a redneck

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10162079724626779&set=gm.8315254938529114&idorvanity=8277508165637125&locale=de_DE

[Nivsch]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

How do you know when it has changed how somebody's mind works and that they're not just larping?

Speaking with them on totally earthly daily topics and see how they relate to things.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

In that case , you are using reductionism basically as just "explanation".

I take reductionism to be a special position with regards to realness and I also take it as a subset of explanations - where it is an explanation but a specific kind - where the notion of realness is only accounted by fundamental parts (this is where the 'you are just atoms bro' come from) . The idea that" lower levels" can exhaustively explain things that are on the "higher level".

Basically, I  take it to be the rejection of strong emergence , where higher parts have certain causal powers that cant fully be accounted by their lower parts.

 

To me its very clear that if there are two people and if one of them believes in strong emergence and the other doesn't, then calling both of them reductionist would be very misleading.

Yeah, but you get the point: reducing reality down to something smaller or simpler, that's what an explanation is. And I get your point: you can sometimes treat the end of the reduction as what is "most real". However, I don't think that is the only thing we tend to call reductionism. I think reductionists often get criticized merely for just reducing a large number of things down to one or a few things, irrespective of any claims of realness. It's the idea that they're missing the bigger picture, epistemologically, rather than making a specific claim ontologically. The classic example is explaining everything with "capitalism", or reducing a complex problem down to simply "capitalism". There, the critique isn't necessarily that they're claiming that capitalism is more "real" than e.g. atoms, but simply that they are using it to explain essentially everything (or really complex problems), and that this is very simplistic, or reductionistic.

Edited April 13 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

Speaking with them on totally earthly daily topics and see how they relate to things.

Do you think Leonardo DiCaprio could pull off a good Tier 2?

[Elliott]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do you think Leonardo DiCaprio could pull off a good Tier 2?

Bro, he already fits YOUR tier 2 criteria. He makes movies to positively influence society, he's been green for 20 years.

[Carl-Richard]

Also, people who are just temperamentally careful, agreeable and not very comfortable with taking firm stances, who always qualify their statements with degrees and ifs, "maybe", "probably", are so extremely good at pulling of the Tier 2 larp. What better identity for someone who prefers to not stand up for anything at all than "there are just different perspectives", "you shouldn't be so critical or fight so hard with other perspectives", "people grow at their own pace, be kind".

[Carl-Richard]

29 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Bro, he already fits YOUR tier 2 criteria. He makes movies to positively influence society, he's been green for 20 years.

 Yes ok, substitute "great actor".

Edited April 13 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

And I bet you if I had framed this thread as "contemplating the limitations and pitfalls of identifying Tier 2", i.e. Tier 2 larping language, everybody would throw themselves at it and provide lists upon lists of spectacular examples and just a free flow of creativity. But because I have this disagreeable tone, I have not primed the Tier 2 larp, and instead people react with their "inner Tier 1", their true self, feeling that their identity, their "single limited perspective", has been attacked and needs defending (being a bit hyperbolic of course; some of you kept it up despite it; and also of course, I know about the power of emotional cuing, priming, framing, so I don't blame you 🥰).

Edited April 14 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yeah, but you get the point: reducing reality down to something smaller or simpler, that's what an explanation is. And I get your point: you can sometimes treat the end of the reduction as what is "most real". However, I don't think that is the only thing we tend to call reductionism. I think reductionists often get criticized merely for just reducing a large number of things down to one or a few things, irrespective of any claims of realness. It's the idea that they're missing the bigger picture, epistemologically, rather than making a specific claim ontologically. The classic example is explaining everything with "capitalism", or reducing a complex problem down to simply "capitalism". There, the critique isn't necessarily that they're claiming that capitalism is more "real" than e.g. atoms, but simply that they are using it to explain essentially everything (or really complex problems), and that this is very simplistic, or reductionistic.

Yes, I agree the way I outlined it  is not the only way we use the term, but I thought you were using it in that sense, because you were originally responding to Nilsi about metaphysics.

Regardless, my main point is that given that this term can be used in multiple ways, we should use it context sensitively so that we don't engage in equivocation.

Edited April 13 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

On 12.4.2025 at 4:01 PM, Leo Gura said:

He is doing it within an Orange framework, not a Yellow one.

Musk is after personal power. He has an authortarian leadership style which is not aligned with Yellow systemic thinking.

You guys keep confusing exploitation of systems with systems thinking. These are not at all the same thing.

Until Musk gives up his authoritarian leadership style I will not consider him Yellow. And he will never give it up.

Until Leo makes the admin position of the forum up for democratic election, I will not consider him Yellow 

[Elliott]

The first new admin would ban him.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

The first new admin would ban him.

Tariffs on all YouTube videos posted on the forum. SD-related videos get 125%.

Edited April 13 by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

Make Actualized Great Again, deport the illegals.