Saving Yellow from Centrism

[martins name]

Yellow too often becomes Centrism. Lex Friedman is a perfect example. This is lazy and it's blind to if the whole system is out of balance. This is particularly a problem in America where both the left and right are corrupt serverns of big business who are so out of touch with the population that people elected Trump to spite the system. 

Yellow rightly sees the value in all the different aspects of a system. Where yellow goes wrong and becomes centrism is when yellow doesn't ask how much value the different aspects of the system has. Maybe in America labor power is more valuable than either the republicans or democrats think? Maybe the progressives are the once with the right answer here?(As they usually are) This way of thinking requires a lot more complexity than Centrism. The banality of centrism should be a clue that it's not the answer to the literally most complex question there is too ask.

Another indictment of centrism is that it never drives history. It never makes the progress that it's dependent on. This means that centrism is always incomplete. Correctly assessing the value of new ideas is the antidote.

Do you agree and do you have any other thoughts on how yellow politics goes wrong?

[zazen]

Very well written. Centrism and claiming to be centrist can be a cowardly way to hide from more mentally taxing discussions.  I wrote this elsewhere but feel it has relevance here. 

''Mature rationality is not just understanding but discerning . The enlightened types like to be detached from the disputes and dichotomies of the common man,  looking down at it all from a lofty place of transcendence. As Ram Dass said, part of awakening can be playing the role of form we are in - that is human. To be human, we've got to get down in the muck where the humanness is happening. Moral relativity is about understanding both sides but moral legitimacy is about determining and discerning the rightness of each side. Pluralism doesn't always mean neutralism.

It's possible to see both sides of every contentious issue - that's a sign of intellectual maturity.  But just because we can see both sides doesn’t mean we should live our life as though they both have equal merit. If we don’t further grapple with the rightness of each side we neglect a whole dimension of understanding by simply leaving it at  “well I can see both sides which means both are equally right”. It’s good to understand that all concepts are relative and that none contain absolute truth, but this necessarily means that some concepts are more relatively truthful than others and by extension some actions are more relatively right than others.

None of us live our lives as though all things are the same and all concepts are equally true - men can't have babies and I can't identify as something I'm not. We don’t drink bleach to wake us up, we order a coffee. When we want to go to somewhere we take a specific route, we don’t walk in a random direction and hope for manifestation to do its magic. Our daily choices reflect our reliance on relative truths as a fundamental aspect of our everyday life. I can understand why a robber had to rob to feed his family but I can still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Hamas did what they did and still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Israel feels entitled to the land of Palestine and still claim it not to be right.

Where a rational society malfunctions compared to a irrational one is that it doesn't mature past the stage of understanding towards discernment. It rationalises in every direction and gets stuck at the subjective level playing the game of moral relativity. Like a windmill able to go in all directions and see all perspectives but which keeps us going round and round, dazed, dizzy and chaotic. Maybe what's needed is to graduate to also having discernment which implies a hierarchy of values and thus a compass to guide us towards betterment.

Deciding our direction with the windmill of moral relativity and not a compass is what keeps society lost, disillusioned, incoherent and polarized with no transcendental logos to unify around. I feel this is one of the reasons a lot of people in the West are returning to religion or tradition as a way to feel anchored in something with direction. But, religion and tradition can too easily become shortcuts to thinking and turn dogmatic - as can  liberalism  - that all perspectives can freely exist and are fine so we don't have to wrestle with the tougher beast that is discerning which perspectives are better or worse.''

[martins name]

@zazen thank you for that post. It crystalizes for me that which I lack the most in politics and which I'm fascinated by, namely spiritual and emotional maturity. I've seen this the strongest in Chris Hedges. I'm attracted to a dialectical synthesis of Chris Hedges and Ken Wilber.

[DocWatts]

My take is that there are better and worse applications of metamodernism, just like there are better and worse versions of postmodernism, modernism, and traditionalism. (Keeping in mind that I'm using metamodernism as generalized stand in for Yellow, postmodernism as a stand in for Green, etc). Insofar as any particular metamodern thinker sticks to Centrism as an axiom, or uses developmental theory (such as Spiral Dynamics, Integral, etc) as a type of sociological bypassing, then I'd argue that it's a bad application of metamodern values. 

The proper use of these developmental models, in my view, is to help contextualize systemic sociological understanding (rather than a replacement for this knowledge).

For instance, I was involved in a Spiral Dynamics discussion / presentation group a while back, and I noticed that there was sometimes a tendency to look at sociopolitical issues from a 10,000 ft vantage point, rather than engaging with the particular nuances of a situation. Which is how you'd get 'Spiral Wizards' drawing false equivalencies between the Democratic and Republican parties, and other such nonsense. 

Where metamodernism is aloof from on the ground political engagement, it does itself a huge disservice. Politics may be downstream from culture, but politics can have a drastic impact on people's lives (as abortion being outlawed in a post Roe v Wade United States can attest to).

Edited March 2 by DocWatts

[aurum]

@martins name

You may be conflating excessive relativism that often happens at SD Green with Yellow meta, multi-perspectivalism.

Remember, it’s really post-modern deconstruction that seeks to argue that there is no objective truth and that therefore nothing can be said to be better or worse than anything else.

Your grievances therefore really seem to be with Green postmodernism more than anything else. Part of what breaks you out of excessive relativism and brings you into Tier 2 is understanding deeply the trap you are talking about, while also not demonizing relativism.

Also, remember that very few people are genuinely solid in Tier 2. If you think you are listening to someone who is solidly Tier 2, the likelyhood is they are not. Personally, I see Lex Friedman as more Green than Yellow.

Edited March 2 by aurum

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, zazen said:

I wrote this elsewhere but feel it has relevance here. 

''Mature rationality is not just understanding but discerning . The enlightened types like to be detached from the disputes and dichotomies of the common man,  looking down at it all from a lofty place of transcendence. As Ram Dass said, part of awakening can be playing the role of form we are in - that is human. To be human, we've got to get down in the muck where the humanness is happening. Moral relativity is about understanding both sides but moral legitimacy is about determining and discerning the rightness of each side. Pluralism doesn't always mean neutralism.

It's possible to see both sides of every contentious issue - that's a sign of intellectual maturity.  But just because we can see both sides doesn’t mean we should live our life as though they both have equal merit. If we don’t further grapple with the rightness of each side we neglect a whole dimension of understanding by simply leaving it at  “well I can see both sides which means both are equally right”. It’s good to understand that all concepts are relative and that none contain absolute truth, but this necessarily means that some concepts are more relatively truthful than others and by extension some actions are more relatively right than others.

None of us live our lives as though all things are the same and all concepts are equally true - men can't have babies and I can't identify as something I'm not. We don’t drink bleach to wake us up, we order a coffee. When we want to go to somewhere we take a specific route, we don’t walk in a random direction and hope for manifestation to do its magic. Our daily choices reflect our reliance on relative truths as a fundamental aspect of our everyday life. I can understand why a robber had to rob to feed his family but I can still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Hamas did what they did and still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Israel feels entitled to the land of Palestine and still claim it not to be right.

Where a rational society malfunctions compared to a irrational one is that it doesn't mature past the stage of understanding towards discernment. It rationalises in every direction and gets stuck at the subjective level playing the game of moral relativity. Like a windmill able to go in all directions and see all perspectives but which keeps us going round and round, dazed, dizzy and chaotic. Maybe what's needed is to graduate to also having discernment which implies a hierarchy of values and thus a compass to guide us towards betterment.

Deciding our direction with the windmill of moral relativity and not a compass is what keeps society lost, disillusioned, incoherent and polarized with no transcendental logos to unify around. I feel this is one of the reasons a lot of people in the West are returning to religion or tradition as a way to feel anchored in something with direction. But, religion and tradition can too easily become shortcuts to thinking and turn dogmatic - as can  liberalism  - that all perspectives can freely exist and are fine so we don't have to wrestle with the tougher beast that is discerning which perspectives are better or worse.''

Excellent.

Edited March 2 by Leo Gura

[martins name]

@DocWatts Thank you. Right on! Adding that to what I wrote, value is found in the details.
 

@aurum You are wrong on all accounts.
I'm not talking about moral relativism. I'm talking about this kind of guy: 

Spiral dynamics is about belief systems, not emotional maturity. There is no model for emotional and character maturity quite yet so many misuse SD in its place. Lex Friedman clearly has a yellow belief system. That's how he talks to people on all sides of politics.

[aurum]

19 minutes ago, martins name said:

I'm talking about this kind of guy: 

 

I see your point. He is straw-manning both sides and making them seem ridiculous, then proposing what he sees as a more reasonable, middle of the road perspective. This could lead to false equivalencies between both sides, rather than seeing how one could be more correct than the other. That’s a valid insight.

At the same time, to always take the side of progressives or conservatives is also incorrect. We need to be able to see how both sides may be getting it wrong, while simultaneously holding the bigger picture of how modern progressives tend to be more evolved than conservatives. This is not some kind of false centrism, this is deeply necessary for intelligent Tier 2 politics.

 

34 minutes ago, martins name said:

@aurum You are wrong on all accounts.
I'm not talking about moral relativism.

Spiral dynamics is about belief systems, not emotional maturity. There is no model for emotional and character maturity quite yet so many misuse SD in its place. Lex Friedman clearly has a yellow belief system. That's how he talks to people on all sides of politics.

I am also not speaking about just moral relativism, although of course that is part of it. I am speaking about the operating system of the Green psyche and its tendency to relativize everything.

Spiral Dynamics speaks on emotional maturity in the sense that it models ego development, which includes emotional maturity to a degree. People lower down the Spiral often act less emotionally mature than those higher up the Spiral, although not always. Belief systems often reflect someone’s emotional maturity. 

Also, Lex being able to talk to all sides of the political spectrum does not necessitate solidly Yellow development. One of the hallmarks of Green is Pluralism and seeking new perspectives. Lex may have some Yellow, but I’m not sure he is solidly there. I could be wrong. I have not done a thorough investigation of his work so I don’t have a strong opinion on this. I am just going off the few videos I have seen of him.

[Nivsch]

@zazen If someone feels a connection to something - to a land, to other person, to another creature, to a flower, to a tree etc. you can't say he isn't right. If he feels that connection deeply in his bones and his emotions - he is right. Your function here is to respect and investigate this mysterious and special feeling, asking him questions and be interested in the root of this connection and maybe, if you see he need to, to help him find this connection root and a way to fulfill it.

[Scarecrow]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

As Ram Dass said, part of awakening can be playing the role of form we are in - that is human. To be human, we've got to get down in the muck where the humanness is happening.

I like that a lot

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 02/03/2024 at 8:43 AM, martins name said:

This is lazy and it's blind to if the whole system is out of balance.

Yes, For example, what about the issue of Privatization and Finacializationof Everything. If what this guy in the video say is true we have reasons to worry, because if you care about Nature you must care about it. Unless someone can prove that Privatization is the best way to solve the Climate,Economical and other Crisis:

The Plan Is To Privatise EVERYTHING. Here’s How

 

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 02/03/2024 at 11:34 AM, zazen said:

Like a windmill able to go in all directions and see all perspectives but which keeps us going round and round, dazed, dizzy and chaotic. Maybe what's needed is to graduate to also having discernment which implies a hierarchy of values and thus a compass to guide us towards betterment.

I was following some videos of this girl in channel "NotSoErudite" and this exactly the felling, specific in one called "Blackpiller Says Hot Conquers All, Defends Monkey-Branching" 

At one point you see that people can keep going on multi-perspectives with never arriving at a final Truth or at least a Objective or Solution. As economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell once noted, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”

[martins name]

@aurum Someone doesn't have to be fully yellow in all lines of development to have a predominantly yellow worldview. Lex is a yellow thinker. 
Green can sympathise with different perspectives but it doesn't integrate the different perspectives. I've never seen a green person be thoroughly politically centrist even if they can be centrist on specific moral issues. Green votes green. Anyway, I'm not talking about green "centrism" nor reacting to it. I'm talking about shortcomings in the yellow worldview. 

I'm realizing a kernel of truth in what you are saying. Most yellow centrists haven't properly integrated green. I think that's what you are calling "not solidly yellow". But it is yellow nonetheless.

Spiral dynamics refers to worldview specifically. The operating systems that create these worldviews are modeled in Clare Graves's model. Many use spiral dynamics as a lumping together of these two models. Leo doesn't make this distinction clear in his videos.

[martins name]

@Rafael Thundercat I'll watch it. I can't think of a single thing in American politics that isn't out of balance and needs to be shifted left.

[Rafael Thundercat]

@martins name maybe this one is more alligned into understanding The Failures Of The Left

I am making a re-study of History since the Occupy Wall Street and many other movements that end up being a Shot in the Foot. The left need a more strategic way of doing things. I see for example in Brasil. For Now Lula is in Power, but I follow some people from Bolsonaro side of Narrative and they have indeed something similar to MAGA in Brasil. So I am using America to understand the misinformation of my own coutry. Another day I saw a Meme against the Left using Margareth Thacher as a role model. the truth is what Leo point some where in his blog, that the commom voter is not educated and vote just by looks and vibes. 

 

https://www.actualized.org/insights/why-bernie-sanders-lost

" Most people vote holistically, not based on any single policy issue. They evaluate a person’s overall vibe and likeability. Because when you’re uninformed, that’s pretty much all you have to go on. And most voters are severely uninformed."

Interesting is that Naomi talks about Bernie Sanders and about all that happened rigth after he lost : Covid and you know the rest . She talks about it around : 39:49 

Edited March 3 by Rafael Thundercat