Tier 1 vs Tier 2

[trenton]

I think the forum would benefit a lot from this kind of distinction As we practice making it in this thread. Especially if this forum has a heavy left wing bias, it makes sense to discuss what a stage blue and stage orange shadow looks like In our psyche. Progressives are mostly around green and they become judgemental of conservatives when the radical difference in values is apparent.

As we discuss ways to integrate blue and orange, we should also make direct comparisons between a tier one and tier two perspective.

A tier one perspective would commonly "should" the other side. As if their values should be different than what they currently are. This is a sign that tier one may view its perspective as the only true way to see reality. Meanwhile a tier two perspective would notice that the Republican party is clearly problematic. For example, they lie about the coup. But tier two would react to this differently than tier one. The key difference seems to be in judging people for their character. A tier two perspective would not really demonize someone for a character that fits their values even if it is radically different from their own. This would be a mark of integrity on their part.

What do you think? Can you make some direct comparisons between green and yellow? How should the blue and orange shadow be integrated? How can we discuss the problems of the Republican party at a higher level than we currently are?

[Oeaohoo]

I would suggest that “Tier 2” is not compatible with a political system reduced to a system of compromises, which are essentially partial allegiances with the forces of “Tier 1”. In such a system, everything from a “Tier 2” perspective comes down to how one conceptualises history as a system: those who view history in terms of universal and linear progress will side with the most “spirally developed” “Tier 1” candidate, whilst those who view history in cyclic terms relative to a given civilisation will side with those who are most appropriate for the political moment. The former is what is generally seen around here.

I would also like to say, though it isn’t necessarily relevant to this discussion, that the distinction between “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” is really just a liberal form of the ancient distinction between patricians and plebeians. It is not a matter of “stages of development” but of leaders destined to rule, who therefore require a direct connection with the divine and a capacity to think systematically, and of people destined to obey, who therefore require a mediated connection with the divine and to confine their concern to their own livelihoods; only the disdain for innate difference which abounds today requires everything to be framed in terms of “personal development”. That is not to say, of course, that the difference between the ruling and ruled classes is entirely innate and that there can be no social mobility.

After all, the real “Tier 2” ambition is to create an Augustinian City of God as a pure physical reflection of metaphysical reality, and I don’t see much likelihood of that happening today… Why would anyone in “Tier 2” want to waste their precious time with this hopeless world of compromises? Better to let it destroy itself, as it understandably seems all too willing and able to do, and see what can emerge out of the ruins.

[trenton]

@Oeaohoo very interesting take. I remember stage green might criticize yellow for seeming indifferent and apolitical sometimes. But if tier two is incompatible with our entire political system, then it makes sense. This requires a recognition that liberals and conservatives have been arguing for thousands of years compromising all along the way. There is no real truth to this. In fact stage yellow might be behind the scenes trying to solve a complex issue without engaging in direct argumentation.

What would "tier two" do instead of engage in a system of compromises?

[Oeaohoo]

47 minutes ago, trenton said:

In fact stage yellow might be behind the scenes trying to solve a complex issue without engaging in direct argumentation.

What would "tier two" do instead of engage in a system of compromises?

That is certainly one possibility. Others might temporarily retreat to a concern for their own development, whether material or spiritual, and wait for a more auspicious time to engage with external events. Some might even engage with political matters whilst recognising the futility of it, either for it’s own sake or for the possibilities it might offer in terms of their personal development.

47 minutes ago, trenton said:

But if tier two is incompatible with our entire political system, then it makes sense.

Also, I don’t mean to prescribe a universal formula: it is possible that some people in “Tier 2” will feel called to act in some way in our current political climate and find ways to do worthwhile work within it. I just can’t help but feel that it is mostly wasted effort.

47 minutes ago, trenton said:

This requires a recognition that liberals and conservatives have been arguing for thousands of years compromising all along the way. There is no real truth to this.

In some sense all earthly endeavours are a compromise; after all, Truth, Love, Wisdom and all the rest of it are metaphysical realities of which the physical world is only a reflection. Our aim should be to make this world as clear of a reflection of these realities as possible. However, it is one thing to compromise with Truth itself, another to compromise with a healthy social order, and another still to compromise with an unhealthy one. To quote a typical passage of one of our last British Sages, Thomas Carlyle:

Quote

It is true, all goes by approximation in this world; with any not insupportable approximation we must be patient. There is a noble Conservatism as well as an ignoble. Would to Heaven, for the sake of Conservatism itself, the noble alone were left, and the ignoble, by some kind severe hand, were ruthlessly lopped away, forbidden evermore to show itself! For it is the right and noble alone that will have victory in this struggle; the rest is wholly an obstruction, a postponement and fearful imperilment of this victory. Towards an eternal centre of right and nobleness, and of that only, is all this confusion tending.

To me, at least, working within the present system can only be a form of “ignoble conservatism”!

49 minutes ago, trenton said:

I remember stage green might criticize yellow for seeming indifferent and apolitical sometimes.

Well, within the model “Stage Yellow” represents a shift back towards individualism and away from collectivism. “Stage Green” can therefore confuse this with the individualism of prior stages.