Jordan Peterson on Moral Law

[Pharion]

@Shroomdoctor

11 hours ago, Shroomdoctor said:

Why dont we just all take whatever good we can take from JP, leave the rest, and stop demonizing him. 

I am quite sure that saying JP has the agenda of oppressing women and minorities is dreadfully wrong, and anyone who would take the time to see the emotions JP is expressing while talking about individuals getting their life together could see that. Whenever you have to start saying things like "He's not saying it but he wants people to think it by interpreting what he says a certain way'' you might want to check very closely if you might be projecting. 

I also think that a lot of people here mischaracterice the radical left as green, when it is a lot more blue/red actually. 

I also think to try to interpret everything with the lense of non duality might cause problems and provides an easy way of being able to counter any argument any way you want. (On that regard I can't say much because I did not have any glimpse of non duality so I might be ignorant) 

 

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. JP might not be as advanced into spirituality as Leo, but he is essentially trying to help people do the same thing as Leo is - help people get thier lives together! He helped me immensely in my early stages and eventually I moved on to actualized.org but that was like a stepping stone and without JP I wouldn't have had the foundation to understand any of this or find it accessible. And yes, I think Leo is just not well informed into politics which is fine he's doing plenty of other important things, but the radical left, and even much of the normal "left" Is absolutely not stage green, it's akin to taking a glimpse at modern Christian as saying they are stage green for following Jesus. 

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, Shroomdoctor said:

Why dont we just all take whatever good we can take from JP, leave the rest, and stop demonizing him. 

I am quite sure that saying JP has the agenda of oppressing women and minorities is dreadfully wrong, and anyone who would take the time to see the emotions JP is expressing while talking about individuals getting their life together could see that. Whenever you have to start saying things like "He's not saying it but he wants people to think it by interpreting what he says a certain way'' you might want to check very closely if you might be projecting. 

I also think that a lot of people here mischaracterice the radical left as green, when it is a lot more blue/red actually. 

I also think to try to interpret everything with the lense of non duality might cause problems and provides an easy way of being able to counter any argument any way you want. (On that regard I can't say much because I did not have any glimpse of non duality so I might be ignorant) 

There's a difference between demonizing someone and stating what someone is doing and calling them out on it. 

I personally, don't demonize Jordan Peterson. I think that he thinks he's doing a very positive thing. So, I don't imagine him as some evil person rubbing their hands together maniacally and tying women to railroad tracks.

I see Jordan Peterson as an idealist who has a particular view of what's best for humanity, who is willing to be manipulative and deceitful to make those 'positive' ends come to fruition. 

It's just that his positive ends, assume a lot about what actually makes a society the most functional. And one of those assumptions is that traditional gender roles are good for men, women, and children alike. And that deviating from them causes social decay. Another one, is that certain cultures are inherently superior to others because the people in those societies have a higher IQ. And that mixing people with lower IQs into a society with a high IQ, weakens the society. 

So, Jordan Peterson's goal is not to oppress anyone. It's to create a perfect society by making sure that everyone is in their proper and natural place... which necessitates exclusion and cleaving to traditional norms and roles.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Im not referring to understanding, motivation, comprehension, etc. Im referring to simple claims about how reality is now without assumptions and opinions. If we cant be honest about what is real now, a true higher consciousness solution cannot be realized.

JP's level of evolution has no bearing on whether claims are true or false. It only has bearing on interpretation and proposed solutions. JP has made some correct claims but misses the mark on proposed solutions. Green has plenty of proposed solutions but has not yet grown out of rejecting truth that conflicts with his/her bias. Solutions based in fantasy about how reality is now are less than optimal. Lets not forget that green needs to continue to evolve also.

Sounds like we just see things differently from a different perspective and will have to agree to disagree

Yes, it is a different perspective. I'm more interested in the Big Picture. I'm more interested in the lens JP is wearing rather than dissecting the details of his individual claims. From this perspective, JPs lens is low consciousness and fundamentally flawed. In particular, that an objective moral law exists. 

What you are saying would also apply to someone with schizophrenia or someone tripping on a psychedelic. One could say these individuals have a distorted lens. Would having schizophrenia or tripping on psychedelics have any bearing on whether a claim is true or false? Does it only have bearing on interpretation and proposed solutions? Do schizophrenics and people tripping make some correct claims and miss the mark on proposed claims? Who is deciding which claims are "correct" and which "miss the mark"? Who decides what "the mark" even is? . . . This is part of the problem with Orange - they believe in an external objective moral reality. 

I think you are assuming that fundamental Blue/Orange mindsets are sane. A blue/orange egoic mindset is nearly at max delusion. It is insanity. Green and psychedelic mindstates are also delusional, yet less so than an egoic Blue/Orange. Yes, we can learn from delusional Blue/Orange mindsets. I'm more interested in the basis of delusional mindsets that are "mentally ill" in a sense. I think JP is a great example where we can observe the nuances of low conscious delusion. With this understanding, we can help people evolve up the spiral. That is one of the motivations of Tier2 - we want to help people to evolve up the spiral. JP is trying to prevent people from evolving upward beyond blue/orange. Understanding the basis of JPs motivation and why it resonates with so many people is an extremely important key to help society evolve higher. If we can dissolve that delusional barrier, society's upward evolution can proceed with less restrictions.

[Matt8800]

33 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes, it is a different perspective. I'm more interested in the Big Picture. I'm more interested in the lens JP is wearing rather than dissecting the details of his individual claims. From this perspective, JPs lens is low consciousness and fundamentally flawed. In particular, that an objective moral law exists. 

What you are saying would also apply to someone with schizophrenia or someone tripping on a psychedelic. One could say these individuals have a distorted lens. Would having schizophrenia or tripping on psychedelics have any bearing on whether a claim is true or false? Does it only have bearing on interpretation and proposed solutions? Do schizophrenics and people tripping make some correct claims and miss the mark on proposed claims? Who is deciding which claims are "correct" and which "miss the mark"? Who decides what "the mark" even is? . . . This is part of the problem with Orange - they believe in an external objective moral reality. 

I think you are assuming that fundamental Blue/Orange mindsets are sane. A blue/orange egoic mindset is nearly at max delusion. It is insanity. Green and psychedelic mindstates are also delusional, yet less so than an egoic Blue/Orange. Yes, we can learn from delusional Blue/Orange mindsets. I'm more interested in the basis of delusional mindsets that are "mentally ill" in a sense. I think JP is a great example where we can observe the nuances of low conscious delusion. With this understanding, we can help people evolve up the spiral. That is one of the motivations of Tier2 - we want to help people to evolve up the spiral. JP is trying to prevent people from evolving upward beyond blue/orange. Understanding the basis of JPs motivation and why it resonates with so many people is an extremely important key to help society evolve higher. If we can dissolve that delusional barrier, society's upward evolution can proceed with less restrictions.

@Serotoninluv

1. People's "lens", schizophrenia, psychedelics, etc has no bearing on whether a claim is factual or not.

2. You have pointed out a couple times that JP believes in an objective morality yet seem to ignore that green also believes in an objective morality. Its just a different objective morality.

3. General sanity or delusion has no bearing on whether an individual claim is factual or not. (If a schizophrenic claims that water boils at 100C at sea level, he would be correct)

4. Green, like orange, rejects truths that conflict with its bias. While green's bias may be more evolved, it is still a bias and bias promotes delusion. The level of delusion of orange has no bearing on the level of delusion of green. 

5. Green is more evolved overall than orange but that does not change the fact that green rejects truths that orange understands. That does not infer, in any way, that orange doesnt reject truths that green understands. 

6. JP's motivation has no bearing on whether an individual claim is factual or not. Rejecting a truth claim simply because of a perceived motivation of the claimant is contrary to solid epistemology. 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv

1. People's "lens", schizophrenia, psychedelics, etc has no bearing on whether a claim is factual or not.

2. You seem to ignore that green also believes in an objective morality. Its just a different objective morality.

3. General sanity or delusion has no bearing on whether an individual claim is factual or not. (If a schizophrenic claims that water boils at 100C at sea level, he would be correct)

4. Green, like orange, rejects truths that conflict with its bias. While green's bias may be more evolved, it is still a bias and bias promotes delusion. The level of delusion of orange has no bearing on the level of delusion of green. 

5. Green is more evolved overall than orange but that does not change the fact that green rejects truths that orange understands. That does not infer, in any way, that orange doesnt reject truths that green understands. 

6. JP's motivation has no bearing on whether an individual claim is factual or not. Rejecting a truth claim simply because of a perceived motivation of the claimant is contrary to solid epistemology. 

I think you are placing a lot of emphasis on the delusions of Green. Of course there are delusions with Green - they are only slightly more evolved than Orange. 

A child passes through 4th grade to reach 6th grade. Teachers want to help both the 4th graders and 6th graders evolve upward into higher grades. High conscious teachers evaluate 4th graders in the context of how can we help them learn, expand and evolve upward toward 5th grade. Similarly, we evaluate 6th graders in a way to help them evolve upward to 7th grade. For each child, what are their deficiencies? What are their blocks?  I don't think it's helpful compare the mindsets of 4th and 6th graders to determine which is "better". We don't say "Well, that 4th grader said something true. Prove to me that what the 4th grader said is false". Or: "That 6th grader didn't know a fact. 6th graders are delusional just like 4th graders". . . Children in each grade are at their own developmental level. In order to help a 4th grader advance to the next grade, we need to know what the developmental characteristics of the next grade are. Would we expect a 4th grader to immediately advance to the 12th grade? Of course not. Just because 5th graders have their own delusions and immaturities, doesn't mean we don't try to help them evolve one grade higher. 

Similarly, JP is a Blue/Orange 4th grader. Of course 4th graders know a few things. We are trying to help him to advance to 5th grade (upper Orange) and then to 6th grade (Green). Of course 5th graders (upper Orange) and 6th graders (Green) have misconceptions and immaturities. Yet, we can't advance a 4th grader at Blue/Orange straight to the 12th grade (Yellow). We would if we could. But we can't. The cognitive level of a 4th grader is incapable of understanding the perspectives of a 12th grader.

Yet, JP goes beyond merely resisting the 5th grade. Not only is he a rebellious 4th grader, he is trying to interfere with other 4th graders from evolving toward the 6th grade. JP is happy to pull up 3rd graders to his 4th grade level, yet he wants to prevent his classmates from advancing on to the 5th grade. One of the missions for Tier2 beings is to recognize these blocks in Tier1 beings and help to relieve the blocks. A 5th grader (upper orange) cannot do it. A 6th grader (Green) cannot do it well - they are still too immature. It needs to come from highly mature individuals in Tier2. It doesn't help to point at the immaturity of 6th graders and say "See, they are immature too!! Just like the 4th graders!!". It doesn't help to say "4th graders say some true things, just like 6th graders!!". What helps is teaching 4th graders material so they can advance and teaching 6th graders material so they can advance. What helps is identifying the blocks a 4th grader has that interferes from learning this material. What helps is taking a meta view of all the grades and designing pedagogies that can help the evolution of children at each developmental stage. 

There is a tremendous amount of internal conflict within Tier1. Getting bogged down in comparing stages against each other is a distraction and just perpetuates the conflict. If we want to help 4th graders (blue/orange) mature, let's discuss their level of development and how we can help them mature. If we want to help 6th graders (Green) mature, let's discuss their level of development and how we can help them mature. JP is a 4th grader and has 4th grade issues, not 6th grade issues. And someone like Sam Seder is solid 6th grade (Green). Sam has 6th grade issues, not 4th grade or 8th grade issues. I would be happy to discuss Sam Seders blocks and how we might help him to evolve to Yellow. Yet, this thread is about 4th graders like JP, not 6th graders like Sam Seder.

When the 4th and 6th grade children fight amongst themselves, Tier2 beings need to take a meta view and be a mature teacher /  parent to help teach the children to mature. The Big Picture of SD is to help people develop - whatever stage they may be at. In this case, the burning question for Tier2 is: How can we help JP and his followers to develop to upper Orange? If we take an honest look, a huge part of the resistance is toward the next step (Green). A big part of why JP doesn't want to enter 5th grade is because he doesn't like 6th graders. To me, the solution is not to tell JP and his followers "Well, 4th graders have a lot of good things going on and 6th grade sucks in a lot of ways". That is just going to cause more resistance.

[Outer]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

If we look at this in terms of Spiral Dynamics, it's emblematic of Orange's drive toward individuality reacting negatively against the community focus of Green and the systemic thinking of Yellow.

It's Orange reacting to stage red/blue in Green. Collectivism without Individuality is Right and Left Authoritarianism. What I think is that Red/Blue collectivism moves to Orange Individuality and then at Green if they are systematic thinkers they keep the Individuality to move to Yellow. I've seen a picture of SD where stage Yellow is Individual Collectivism. I don't think Green is a place to stay unless the Red/Blue collectivism is rejected. Community is one way to put Green, healthy collectivism. It doesn't group humans into races, gender identities, rich/poor and other groups for practical social justice. It merely lifts all up, the Greater Group of Homo Sapiens AND other Animals, that's where animal rights activism comes into place, influenced by compassion and awareness of spirituality, consciousness, sentience. Orange puts the focus on the Individual, you are not your race or your gender before you're an Individual and  the scientific nature of it puts inclusion into, and climbing of hierarchies, by competence. To reject it is to ignore healthy and practical aspects of Orange. It seems wise to gain the practical aspects of Social Justice, but it is not worth it. Practical social justice is uplifting everyone.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

It's Orange reacting to stage red/blue in Green. Collectivism without Individuality is Right and Left Authoritarianism. What I think is that Red/Blue collectivism moves to Orange Individuality and then at Green if they are systematic thinkers they keep the Individuality to move to Yellow. I've seen a picture of SD where stage Yellow is Individual Collectivism. I don't think Green is a place to stay unless the Red/Blue collectivism is rejected. Community is one way to put Green, healthy collectivism. It doesn't group humans into races, gender identities, rich/poor and other groups for practical social justice. It merely lifts all up, the Greater Group of Homo Sapiens AND other Animals, that's where animal rights activism comes into place, influenced by compassion and awareness of spirituality, consciousness, sentience. Orange puts the focus on the Individual, you are not your race or your gender before you're an Individual and  the scientific nature of it puts inclusion into, and climbing of hierarchies, by competence. To reject it is to ignore healthy and practical aspects of Orange. It seems wise to gain the practical aspects of Social Justice, but it is not worth it. Practical social justice is uplifting everyone.

But to focus only on the individual creates a blindspot in consciousness to the systemic nature of the social patterns that squelch society's consciousness and full potential.

People who are interested in removing unnecessary systemic barriers relative to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. are not engaging in Red/Blue tribalism. And to see it that way is just an outgrowth of Orange's resistance to Green. 

They are, in fact engaged in stage Green community focus and the more effective are both engaged in Green community focus coupled with Yellow systemic thinking.

To boil everything down to the individual is to ignore the systemic nature of the workings of society, and to deny that society has systems that have real reactions to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. So, it is Orange denial of Yellow to remain in the holding point of unconsciousness to the awareness of how certain communities of people are affected differently by the social systems that exist within society. 

Of course, Green does have a resistance to Orange individualism as well, and this is what makes them less effective than those who are interested in social justice causes that are more Yellow. So, Green people will also get stuck in victim's mentality and lose the ability to switch lenses from community focus to individual focus.

But once a person is in Yellow, they will see the workings of society clearly and notice that race, gender, socio-economic status are foolish to ignore and pretend don't exist or have any bearing on anything. But they will also be more detached because they will be able to switch their lens back to individual focus if the situation is more appropriate. 

But all these problems with Green are Green problems. They're not Blue and Red problems, at all. Labeling them as Blue/Red is just a crafty way to justify resistance to Green, and to remain in Orange. 

[Outer]

5 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But to focus only on the individual creates a blindspot in consciousness to the systemic nature of the social patterns that squelch society's consciousness and full potential.

Yes, that's Orange's limitations. The integration of Green and Orange group vs. individual dichotomy I think is Yellow.

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

People who are interested in removing unnecessary systemic barriers relative to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. are not engaging in Red/Blue tribalism. And to see it that way is just an outgrowth of Orange's resistance to Green. 

Not all who are interested in doing that. But many. In a society where University is tuition free, the spots are chosen based on competence, on SAT scores or equivalent. Some Green who have red/blue beliefs will want them to be chosen by imagined group affiliation, that will go on the exclusion of people who were competent but didn't fit the group affiliation which needed to reach its targets.

12 minutes ago, Emerald said:

To boil everything down to the individual is to ignore the systemic nature of the workings of society, and to deny that society has systems that have real reactions to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. So, it is Orange denial of Yellow to remain in the holding point of unconsciousness to the awareness of how certain communities of people are affected differently by the social systems that exist within society. 

Yes, systems and especially people have real reactions to those things you mentioned, among other things. That's called discrimination and even for Orange that's not a good idea as we, as a society, want the most competent. Orange might argue of business rights to chose who to hire, but that is unhealthy orange because it's contradictory to its own principles and preventing moving up the spiral. But you use socially constructed race and at the same time work beyond it.

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But once a person is in Yellow, they will see the workings of society clearly and notice that race, gender, socio-economic status are foolish to ignore and pretend don't exist or have any bearing on anything. But they will also be more detached because they will be able to switch their lens back to individual focus if the situation is more appropriate. 

Clearly it is foolish to reject them even though they are mostly social constructions or stories (some things are though biological based, which is healthy Orange) because many people do not.

18 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But all these problems with Green are Green problems. They're not Blue and Red problems, at all. Labeling them as Blue/Red is just a crafty way to justify resistance to Green, and to remain in Orange. 

I'm just thinking what I've thought before in what I think is Spiral Dynamics. Just thinking out loud. I'm not so careful right now in my writing so bear with me. But I do think I am on to something with Individual Collectivism being Yellow.

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But to focus only on the individual creates a blindspot in consciousness to the systemic nature of the social patterns that squelch society's consciousness and full potential.

People who are interested in removing unnecessary systemic barriers relative to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. are not engaging in Red/Blue tribalism. And to see it that way is just an outgrowth of Orange's resistance to Green. 

This is a great point that we might be able to connect to Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy.

Orange see themselves as "rational" and Red/Blue as irrational. Yet, Orange cannot yet comprehend post-rational at Green/Yellow levels. Thus, Orange sees anything non-rational as being irrational. For example, Orange see Turquoise-level mysticism as irrational nonsense characteristic of Purple and Blue. 

Similarly, Orange cannot comprehend the higher level Green communities. To Orange, it appears like Red/Blue tribalism communities. For example, Orange may be unable to make a distinction between Red/Blue Trump tribalism and Green Bernie Sanders communities. 

[Outer]

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Orange see themselves as "rational" and Red/Blue as irrational. Yet, Orange cannot yet comprehend post-rational at Green/Yellow levels. Thus, Orange sees anything non-rational as being irrational. For example, Orange see Turquoise-level mysticism as irrational nonsense characteristic of Purple and Blue. 

Depends how you explain it.

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Similarly, Orange cannot comprehend the higher level Green communities. To Orange, it appears like Red/Blue tribalism communities. For example, Orange may be unable to make a distinction between Red/Blue Trump tribalism and Green Bernie Sanders communities. 

Bernie Sanders communities is not the tribalism. Can you think of Left Tribalism? What is that?

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Pharion said:

I think many of the students and teachers in western universitities have taken stage green ideas and made it into a rigid, dogmatic ideology. the people JP and I are talking about hate opposing opinions, are prejudiced and spiteful towards "oppressors" who have done nothing to harm them, and blindly have total faith in their collective ideologies and will demonize anyone who doesn't conform. Ironically, much of modern day "progressivism" is actually being dons by people who have a stage blue mentality, and create the rise of groups like antifa who will try to beat and intimadate people who have different beliefs. If it is stage green mentality, it's a very toxic and hateful form of it, but I really think it's just stage blue mentality people getting dogmatic and righteous about progressive ideals. You say racism is a stage blue marker, I can tell you that many of the "progressive" ppl in university are out and out racist and hateful to white people. 

In Tier1, each stage includes people that will demonize people in other stages. Stage Red will demonize Blue and vice-versa. Are unhealthy Blue expressions a good reason for Red to stay Red? For example, Blue highly values rules and laws. Sometimes Blue swings to an extreme and creates laws that are too strict. Is that a good reason for Red to say "See!!! Laws are repressive!! Laws are bad!!! No more Laws!!! Anarchy is better!!!"? Of course not. It would be better for Red to evolve into a healthy Blue and recognize the value of laws in society. Once the person has entered Blue, how can they promote Blue to become healthier?

Similarly, some people in stage Blue/Orange will demonize Green and vice-versa. Sometimes Green swings to an extreme and may discriminate against white people. Is that a good reason for Blue/Orange to say "See!!! Multiculturalism is discriminatory!!! Inclusion is discriminatory!!! Equality is discrimination in disguise!!! Segregation and tribalism is better!!!" Of course not. It would be better for Blue/Orange to evolve into healthy Green and recognize the value of multiculturalism, inclusion and equality in society. Once the person has entered Green, how can they promote Green to be even healthier?

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Outer said:

Bernie Sanders communities is not the tribalism. Can you think of Left Tribalism? What is that?

Exactly. That is the point. Blue/Orange has not reached a developmental stage in which they can comprehend Green-level community (such as a Bernie Sanders community). The developmental level of Blue/Orange only allows them to perceive communities as Blue and below. Therefore they are unable to make a distinction between Green level communities (such as Bernie Sanders) and Red/Blue level communities (Trump tribalism). They will both look similar. One needs to evolve to stage Green to understand the difference.

This isn't a question of "Left" or "Right". There is very little tribalism in Green. Green has evolved beyond that. Occasionally extreme unhealthy Green that pops up that appears similar to Blue level tribalism. Similarly, occasionally extreme unhealthy Orange pops up that appears similar to Red. For example, an extreme corporate manager that threatens to kill a competitor. 

[Outer]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Exactly. That is the point. Blue/Orange has not reached a developmental stage in which they can comprehend Green-level community (such as a Bernie Sanders community). The developmental level of Blue/Orange only allows them to perceive communities as Blue and below. Therefore they are unable to make a distinction between Green level communities (such as Bernie Sanders) and Red/Blue level communities (Trump tribalism). They will both look similar. One needs to evolve to stage Green to understand the difference.

This isn't a question of "Left" or "Right". There is very little tribalism in Green. Green has evolved beyond that. Occasionally extreme unhealthy Green that pops up that appears similar to Blue level tribalism. Similarly, occasionally extreme unhealthy Orange pops up that appears similar to Red. For example, an extreme corporate manager that threatens to kill a competitor. 

I'd be careful in saying statements like there's little tribalism in Green. You sound a bit like a conservative saying there's little tribalism in conservatism. But I don't know the statistics. Clearly the country is divided into polarized culture & tribal wars. The point I have is that there IS more tribalism in Green than you understand. In fact I think both you and Emerald have shown it yourselves. For instance by building arguments out of stage red/blue stories like gender, race etc. The Universities is exactly where this is happening on mass.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Outer

[Outer]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This isn't a question of "Left" or "Right".

Can you give an example of Right Tribalism?

[Outer]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Maybe you and Emerald just have different visions that you are seeking to fulfill in life.  There doesn't have to be a fact of the matter.  Vision is more important than any fact of the matter.  You can go round and round on who's right, but your vision is uniquely obvious.  And each person has a unique vision for how the want to contribute back to reality.

Do you think stage Yellow is Individual Collectivism?

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, Outer said:

Do you think stage Yellow is Individual Collectivism?

Stage Yellow would be able to see which paradigm is most appropriate in a given situation. So, I wouldn't call it Individual Collectivism as a synonym for Yellow thinking. It's far more accurate to say that Yellow is adept at systemic thinking, as it has the ability to look at things through both and Individual and Collective lens because it has integrated and transcended both Orange and Green, as well as all the previous levels of Individualism and Collectivism. So, it can shift back and forth between the two depending on which paradigm is most appropriate for the common good in a given scenario. 

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Outer said:

I'd be careful in saying statements like there's little tribalism in Green. You sound a bit like a conservative saying there's little tribalism in conservatism. But I don't know the statistics. Clearly the country is divided into polarized culture & tribal wars. The point I have is that there IS more tribalism in Green than you understand. In fact I think both you and Emerald have shown it yourselves. For instance by building arguments out of stage red/blue stories like gender, race etc. The Universities is exactly where this is happening on mass.

You can create a broader grouping of tribalism if you like. That would be like saying there are expessions of purple/blue within Green. Or, one could say there is a phenomena called “tribalism” or “community” that is expressed at each level. This would be like saying the phenomena of “religion” iccurs at each stage. It is just the expression if the phenoena that looks different at each stage. I.e. Blue religion is expressed differently than Green religion.

I like prefer the latter, to create levels if a phenomena - let’s say a sense of community. Purple to lower blue is such a small contracted expression if community that I would call it tribal - to distinguish it as a rudimentary form of community. Upper blue to upper Green has a more mature, expansive view of community. Green- level community is *much* more expansive than Purple, Red or Blue. At Green level, we are talking about soneone who has done things like: lived in a variety of communities, including low income; has lived within communities in foreign countries; has learned a foreign language to expand their ability to make more diverse human connections, has been in inter-racial relationships, has volunteered for people in poverty, addictions, mental illness. Has meditation and yoga communities. A solid Green level is actually a network of dozens of communities - so by defintion they cannot be tribal. Purple/red/blue is contracted within a single community - a tribe. Green is too multi-community to be tribal. They can be arrogant, rude, angry, and judgmental - yet their sense of community is still much mire expansive than lower stages. I would call it something like a “distorted multi-community” mindset - not tribalism. 

[Forestluv]

47 minutes ago, Outer said:

Can you give an example of Right Tribalism?

No. Tribalism is not “left” or “right” in the SD model. 

[Outer]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Yellow is individualistic but like Green has a big picture like purpose where they want to contribute back to reality and help others too. 

 

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Stage Yellow would be able to see which paradigm is most appropriate in a given situation. So, I wouldn't call it Individual Collectivism as a synonym for Yellow thinking. It's far more accurate to say that Yellow is adept at systemic thinking, as it has the ability to look at things through both and Individual and Collective lens because it has integrated and transcended both Orange and Green, as well as all the previous levels of Individualism and Collectivism. So, it can shift back and forth between the two depending on which paradigm is most appropriate for the common good in a given scenario. 

The collective lens is more of a hallucination than the individual lens, as its through the individual lens in which you have the collective. If you take on a collective lens I think it's the Individual collective lens which is the healthy one, as first it doesn't lead to totalitarian certainty and second it deconstructs collective hallucinations that put primacy on collective hallucinations like race. It's impossible to have another communist russia or nazi germany with mass collective individualism which is a mix of orange and green into yellow.

 

58 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You can create a broader grouping of tribalism if you like. That would be like saying there are expessions of purple/blue within Green. Or, one could say there is a phenomena called “tribalism” or “community” that is expressed at each level. This would be like saying the phenomena of “religion” iccurs at each stage. It is just the expression if the phenoena that looks different at each stage. I.e. Blue religion is expressed differently than Green religion.

I like prefer the latter, to create levels if a phenomena - let’s say a sense of community. Purple to lower blue is such a small contracted expression if community that I would call it tribal - to distinguish it as a rudimentary form of community. Upper blue to upper Green has a more mature, expansive view of community. Green- level community is *much* more expansive than Purple, Red or Blue. At Green level, we are talking about soneone who has done things like: lived in a variety of communities, including low income; has lived within communities in foreign countries; has learned a foreign language to expand their ability to make more diverse human connections, has been in inter-racial relationships, has volunteered for people in poverty, addictions, mental illness. Has meditation and yoga communities. A solid Green level is actually a network of dozens of communities - so by defintion they cannot be tribal. Purple/red/blue is contracted within a single community - a tribe. Green is too multi-community to be tribal. They can be arrogant, rude, angry, and judgmental - yet their sense of community is still much mire expansive than lower stages. I would call it something like a “distorted multi-community” mindset - not tribalism. 

The problem is the collective hallucinations which each stage shares with each other, a green is sharing the hallucination of race with a red, so they reinforce each other's delusions to keep one another game going. It is mutually beneficial to the Green and the Red. The Green telling a non-Red who isn't delusional their delusion, it spreads. If another person comes along and says race is a social construction, or mostly irrelevant for the average person, from a Big Picture science perspective, both will fight him. A person in the Green stage can't for instance make conspiracy theories about a supposed patriarchy of a certain race, like if they were lizard men, if their collective hallucination isn't entertained. 

I do not want to hear what you say what you perceive to be my race or my privilege is as it's your delusion, not mine. Nor do I want to write an essay of your delusion of me. Ineffability is who we are, not delusions. Your point about inter-racial relationship is an example of your mind being delusional thinking there is such a thing of different races, even though both stage Green and Orange (Science) rejects such a notion. The racial social construction is based on a few traits that are observable, actual genetics is more complicated and whether our social construction completely matches the genetic data is very questionable. An alien that comes to Earth wouldn't probably divide people into different groups based on for instance appearance like skin color.

On your point regarding the levels of expansiveness regarding community or belonging, yes, that's correct and useful.

This article writes about Xenophobia and Xenophilia and a couple possible biological mechanisms for Xenophilia like a gene at DRD4 (dopamine D4 receptor)
https://mad.science.blog/2018/07/09/xenotypy/

 

 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

The collective lens is more of a hallucination than the individual lens, as its through the individual lens in which you have the collective. If you take on a collective lens I think it's the Individual collective lens which is the healthy one, as first it doesn't lead to totalitarian certainty and second it deconstructs collective hallucinations that put primacy on collective hallucinations like race. It's impossible to have another communist russia or nazi germany with mass collective individualism which is a mix of orange and green into yellow.

This is just more of Orange's Individualist resistance to Green's focus toward the Collectivist perspective, and a way to write off Green and demonize it. So, no. Individualism and Collectivism are both valid but imperfect perspectives, and both have utility relative situations and lack utility relative to certain other situations. So, a Yellow person would look at a given situation and see what was most appropriate in a given situation and choose depending on the scenario. And if they were looking from a social systems perspective as to how to effect major change in the world and creating space for expanded consciousness and higher quality of living on the macro, they would be wise to choose the Collectivist lens for dealing with these issues and creating actionable solutions.

And from the perspective of social systems and everyday living, race is anything but a hallucination. It has very real impacts on how people are affected within a social system and how the entire system runs. And to ignore race as a reality is to create a blindspot and relegate all patterns that exist relative to race to the personal and collective shadow. It requires mental gymnastics to deny that these realities exist. This is why it's unconscious as it exists in the realm of Orange's shadow that it doesn't like to acknowledge, as it undermines the seeming airtightness of the Orange worldview to an Orange person. So, there will be many attempts to rationalize away these aspects of reality and invalidate them as "playing identity politics."

In other words, denying the existence of the subjective collective reality relative to any identity signifier and its potential effects on individuals, just creates blindspots and unconsciousness and is rooted in denial of aspects of the social systems and how they work. It insulates us from the awareness of the barriers to humanity's expanding consciousness and liberation that looms upon the horizon.