Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

[jacob]

The main difference that I see between permaculture and ERE systems is that the former is converging on a static climax stage (food forest, say) whereas the latter has dynamic/time-component. It's a web-of-goals not a web-of-nutrients. This is also why I objected to Alhpaville's "closed economy" as an example.

If the master goal is to become a "renaissance man" then adding the capitals/skills (ERE chap 4) that were independently developed in WL6 into the web will also unlock various synergies. It's easier to learn metal working if you already understand woodworking. Also see lattice-work.

That said, permaculturists are those I find easiest to explain ERE too because of the "systems science" approach. When I was writing the book and having to come up with terms to flesh it out, I was mainly looking at permaculture and operations research. I frequently found myself having to "invert" operations research concepts because the point of ERE was to increase optionality whereas typical operations research is intended to decrease it by reducing the degrees of freedom and optimizing them for measurable performance under external constraints in a very formulaic manner.

This is also why I think engineers (w/o soft skills or science experience) might have a harder time breaking through the WL5 ceiling and why we don't see much beyond WL5 in the engineering-dominated FIRE sphere. Conversely, permaculture people will readily adopt the systems perspective but many of them think money is but a necessary evil and so many lack the foundational WL2-5 knowledge when it comes to financial matters. Since we live in a world that's dominated by financial concerns, this is a big handicap. Similarly, I suspect that people with formal training or a lot of experience in systems science might have a hard time moving out of WL7-8 because they're trying to fit everything---even stuff that doesn't belong there---into their systems thinking.

Side-note: Pedagogically, I don't see how one can understand WL7 (the systems) without having a deep understanding of WL6 (the yields). I read permaculture for many years trying to use it as a way into producing my own food. It was largely useless because I did not understand even basic stuff about gardening beyond "put seeds the ground, add water, wait". This is also why our gardening can be described in similar stages starting with squarefoot gardening, moving to mulching and trenching, ... and maybe eventually to permaculture. One can find plenty of permaculture gardens/homesteads on the interwebs but w/o an understanding of basic plants et al, it's practically impossible to appreciate what went into those designs. This is also why permaculture can come across as a bunch of "woo" when trying to build the system before having deep experience with what goes into it.

[Scott 2]

@7Wannabe5 - That all makes sense. It's clear you internalized the baseline rules but also adapt them on the fly. I think this is something most higher level players do.

@ertyu - Sure. As an aside - I'm not convinced aggressive lifestyle design leads to one's "best" life. There's something to be said for enjoying the person you are today, embracing life as it is. Especially when loved ones are involved. Letting go of the constant striving for change might be the ultimate hack. It's in my nature to do the opposite, and I question the wisdom.


I don't think you need a deep understanding of adaptive systems to apply the ideas.


Every person has a system, sitting at a local maximum. Even the level 1's. They also already have rules (typically unstated), make changes (probably forced), have goals (likely subjective and unstated) and experience feedback loops (generally slow or ignored).

The process is simple, try a change that seems like it might be better. If it is, keep it. The hard part - change hurts. The larger the rock, the bigger the hump of pain. People do not like to be uncomfortable, so they resist. Especially if they are not a willing player of the game.

So one has to accept change as a constant in life, the pain of continuous disruption. This means constantly leaving comfort of the local maximum. At low levels, it's easy. The goals are concrete and the pain of iteration is low. IE:

Goal: More money
Rule: Spend less, especially on recurring expenses
Change: Switch cell phone carrier to MVNO
Feedback: Cell phone bill goes down, but coverage insufficient
Additional goal: Sufficient cell coverage
Change: Switch cell phone carrier to MVNO using Verizon network
Feedback: Cell phone bill stays same, coverage sufficient


This person can make a ton of progress moving small rocks. They don't need to be crafty about change, because there is so much opportunity available. The price of change is low. The feedback loop is short. There are millions of people to copy from.

There's still opportunity for differentiation. A good player will seek a short feedback loop and smaller rock. Maybe check coverage with others in their area using MVNO's, then buy a SIM that fits their existing phone. A bad player might commit to a slow feedback loop and unnecessarily large rock - the cheapest 1 year plan, the cheapest new phone, and because of that, a phone OS they've never had.


When someone is great at lifestyle design, they drastically reduce the price of "try some stuff, keep what works". This allows more abstract goals. They can absorb much larger humps of pain (uncertainty). IMO, when Jacob talks about a high level player, he describes someone carrying the weight of continuous, aggressive disruption. There isn't one "right" goal, because it's increasingly tuned to the individual, who is also constantly changing.

That player can pursue hard changes, which allow for construction of the self-reinforcing system. Doing so frequently requires cutting good things - homes, careers, relationships, even the successful rules that got a player to today. The feedback cycle on large rocks is long. There are few people to copy from. Changes will fail. It's a normal part of their highly adaptive life

[Aside - if you aren't up for this, having someone force it on you is tremendously upsetting. I think that contributes to skilled players (@Fish comes to mind) who let it go, for the sake of a spouse].


I wouldn't describe myself as a high level player. Yesterday - I trawled the internet all day, ate chips for lunch, then went to bed early because my head hurt. How's that for a self reinforcing system?


Examples can be taken from the board. The intent of this thread is to discuss the systems of high level players. Those people will be hesitant to self identify, IMO. Using a numerical scale really discourages it. I think they typically play intuitively, a natural outcome of their life experience. All this abstract analysis, especially at the individual level, quickly devolves to a trap. One can develop systems expertise, but high level players are simply out there trying some stuff, keeping what works.

How often do you see MMM participate in his own forum? I enjoy the naval gazing, but question the effectiveness.

I personally watch for people who comfortably change their biggest rocks. @C40 exploring the US in his van, now Asia. The life @animal created in Alaska. The homestead build in @ffj's nuked journal. @7Wannabe5 floating between her low income students and wealthy partners. @Frita fighting for students locally, then doing charity internationally. This list goes on. It's confusing to the uninitiated, because those players can fail traditional measures of success (wealth, status, power, etc.).


I'll note - lives of these players do not map perfectly to ERE Wheaton levels. A model is necessarily biased by the creator. Jacob was very clear about that. The ERE table is a map of his own creation, a guide to his philosophy. People under appreciate how personal it is.

Putting the essence of who you are as a person, the fundamentals of your life, out there for criticism? Ouch. I wouldn't do it. Too painful. But, that's a high level player creating feedback loops and absorbing change.

[Alphaville]

If the master goal is to become a "renaissance man"

aaaahhhh! that helps clarify.

so--ultimate goal, for its own sake?

[7Wannabe5]

The main difference that I see between permaculture and ERE systems is that the former is converging on a static climax stage (food forest, say) whereas the latter has dynamic/time-component.

There is a symmetry between the human psyche and the environment in which it evolved. Humans can’t derive enough nutrients from climax stage. We evolved and thrive in chaotic, high nutrient edge environments . Therefore, Principle 11 and 12, which are about valuing the edge and change. These are also towards Taleb’s concept of anti-fragility.

When a conventional plow cuts through the soil, it is quite literally cutting a fertile edge. When early humans slashed and burned, they were creating a fertile edge. The edge is necessary and, by definition, can not be static, but within permaculture, through intelligent design, this can be accomplished with minimal waste of all manner of resources inclusive of human effort.

IOW, it’s not nearly as simple as knowing about financial instruments and putting together a static portfolio

@Scott 2:

I would rate my level of lifestyle planning as roughly equivalent to that of Lucy and Ethel.

[Alphaville]

there's nothing static about a living forest. it may achieve a steady state from a certain momentary perspective, but that's something completely different altogether in both theory and reality.

[Qazwer]

@7w5
‘IOW, it’s not nearly as simple as knowing about financial instruments and putting together a static portfolio ’

You seem to have a joy in dealing with the complexity in permaculture. That is a human enough trait. I wonder if that is a key component of not only whether people engage with ERE but also ‘progress’ A key factor might be a sense of whimsy and fun. Simple monetary optimization just might not be as interesting to those who play a different game.

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

From one perspective there is no such thing as a climax forest. From another perspective it can be viewed as analogous to an advanced civilization in which most resources are initially flowing into huge institutions.

@Qazwer:

It is difficult to imagine how one might apply “whimsy” to the game of chess. Oops, I forgot, Lewis Carroll did that!

[Alphaville]

@Alphaville:

From one perspective there is no such thing as a climax forest. From another perspective it can be viewed as analogous to an advanced civilization in which most resources are initially flowing into huge institutions.

i don't know about institutions.

as for forests, having spent a long time making biological observations in the amazon rainforest i can tell you that nothing stays in place and if it does it's not for very long. the reason the soil is so shallow is because no soon her has a leaf fallen to the ground than an ant beings to cut it up into little pieces and taken to their factory. it's things living upon things living upon things living upon things living upon things, ad infinitum.

the problem with the human perspective is it tends to identify with the individual specimen as the end and the beginning of it all and construct ideologies about it--not as useful heuristics but as metaphysics. richard dawkins destroyed that conception half a century ago but the popular imagination hasn't caugh up with that yet. same with deleuze and guattari's mille plateaux. everything is in flux, all the time, and that's the way if things.

the only static thing in the world are insufficient abstract conceptions of that world.

[Scott 2]

I would rate my level of lifestyle planning as roughly equivalent to that of Lucy and Ethel.

I would bet you intuitively protect capacity for change.

I think effective players can be characterized by what they don't do. The ERE levels are a stripping of unnecessary activity, overhead suited to other people's formal structures. The pattern repeats in other domains.

I'm bummed to see people like @cL or @bigato drop off the forum, but it's not surprising. A node stopped serving. An attempt to fix it failed (both leaned into the forum first). So, they pruned the node and re-allocated the capacity to other change.


IMO heavy planning is an aspirational trait, resonating with a lower level player. They are confused about the possible degree of control, how effectively one can predict the future. Some of us (me) have to experience the pain of rigidity, before they can let it go.

Playing at a high level means operating off a rough mental sketch. It is far more adaptive. Detailed planning is replaced by a "pit of success", the self-reinforcing system. Structure only appears when it is time to operate at scale.

I think this is the intuitive nature of many people. Plugging into modern society (scale) crushes it. I believe there are people who step sideways into high Wheaton levels. But, they don't start life thriving in K-12, looking forward to that bachelor's degree.

[Alphaville]

This question wasn't addressed to me, but it reflects what seems to be missing in a lot of these discussions. Seems like there exists a great solution in search of a problem sometimes. That's why I threw out some very shallow, simpleminded placeholder goals for myself. Apparently my thought process and M.O. are incorrect, but I'm going to take my vision such as it has evolved to be and try to assess it's cohesiveness qualitatively relative to my ability to grok the proposed architecture.

hey, i took a day to answer because i was mulling over, not ignoring.

for me it's not so much a solution in search of a problem but a theory in search of an object.

in science, as far as i've been trained, observation precedes a hypothesis, and it's the successive observation and testing that finally yields a theory.

here i'm getting the theory without the observation or clear description of the object/phenomena. moreover, i'm getting a theoretical paradigm from a different domain (eco-level for communication/marketing) altogether "applied" to this unknown undefine object. which not only would be the wrong model but also would bias the observations towards fulfilling the model. this reminds me of the habitual failures of the humanities: "apply edward said to the literature of the bolivarian revolution" or "apply foucault to instagram" sort of thing.

a proper theory emerges from observation and description of the object or phenomena. here, i'm not getting an object or phenomena, but rather i'm being told the object is undefinable and ungraspable and unknowable and undescribable unless i've accessed the inner party.

like enlightenment i guess, but even if enlightenment cant be explained but is only experienced, the clear stated purpose of the monastic buddhist life is to liberate all sentient beings from suffering. a tall order if there ever was one, to achieve what appears impossible, but it's a clear statement purpose nevertheless that a monk vows to engage and gets chanted before sitting to meditate. so while the object might be ungraspable to reason, the purpose is clear.

so the unanswered question for me is what is the object/what is the purpose. if you have to ask, you'll never know? ok then.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i gotta keep working on my life, such as it is...

[jacob]

so the unanswered question for me is what is the object/what is the purpose. if you have to ask, you'll never know? ok then.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think it's been answered before or at least I feel like I have to repeat or reference back all the time. Sometimes I get the impression that whatever points made to answer a question fade into darkness once they scroll past the top of the screen. Or maybe the answers just go ignored or unseen. Sorry, but this gets frustrating/I feel like I'm wasting my time ... I think maybe "ERE" itself will become the 45 entry on my list:

See viewtopic.php?p=99252#p99252

Anyway, since BookLoverL was totally on base and summarized THE GOALS OF THE ERE PROJECT very nicely in the concurrent thread that spawned this one, here it is requoted again for what I believe is the third time in little over a week...

I may be way off base here but I tend to think of the goal as something like "living a fulfilling life while also living in a way that is ecologically sustainable and in balance with the world", with each new level representing a new individual understanding of how to do both of those things at once and why it's a good thing to want to.

Even a WL1 person is *trying* to live in a fulfilling way - they just think that buying things is what will give them fulfilment.

The original Wheaton scale focuses only on the ecological aspect and only on certain methods of solving that (permaculture), and doesn't to me feel like it allows for people with different skillsets and desired lifestyles as much as the ERE scale does. So as has been said above, the ERE one has a broader scope.

(My bold)

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

I agree that forests are highly dynamic. What I was referring to with the analogy to large institutions is that the canopy of large trees is the first recipient of the flow of energy from the sun, wind, and rain. The large trees also store the bulk of the stock of prior energy flow. Humans did not evolve in this sort of niche. In garden design, one of the core patterns towards pleasant emotional response is “wall to back, view to front.”

[Alphaville]

I may be way off base here but I tend to think of the goal as something like "living a fulfilling life while also living in a way that is ecologically sustainable and in balance with the world", with each new level representing a new individual understanding of how to do both of those things at once and why it's a good thing to want to.


thanks jacob, it's good to get a clear answer to begin, but it's also frustrating for those who are fishing for a clear answer in a large disorganized corpus over many threads and weeks to get scolded for not knowing where to hunt and peck, because we aren't mind readers and everyone processes information differently.

and the booklover statement is not part of your table. that's something booklover said.

if book lover is not "way off base" like she says, then incorporating her answer (without the "off base" disclaimer) would add coherence and comprehension to the thing.

and yes i get that you want mohammed to come to the mountain like a good disciple, but if you're tired of being misunderstood maybe it's not 100% other people's fault.

i used to have 2 math profs in college. one was american trained the other was soviet trained.

the american would start with class with a little lecture or demonstration where he'd explain some concept from physics or biology then proceed to describe things with equations then move on to problems, etc. it was a great class.

the soviet would show up to class, write some incomprehensible formula on the blackboard, then when we'd ask what it meant he'd just laugh at us for not knowing. we ended up solving some difficult equations in that course but nobody learned anything in it. and yes i speak for others because we formed study groups to cope with the hurdles.

i get it that you want to trailblaze not teach, etc., but if you're tired of being misunderstood it helps to clarify rather than scold people like they are schoolchildren, which is a damn turnoff and counterproductive.

it's also possible that one may understand something but still disagree with it or question it, because the production and transmission of knowlege is inevitably a social one in our open societies. confucius may have taught "from above" in imperial china but this is not how we live today. today we question "the master."

the last thing to mention i will steal from a conversation i had with a friend ages ago. i'm not saying this is an objective truth or something, it's just a story that illustrates two concepts of truth.

basically he was saying that in the german tradition the idea of truth is often associated with "depth" (tiefe?) and the image is that truths are buried etc. "deep truths." difficultto get to, buried, and obscure.

to that he opposed the french idea of clarté. clarity, and graspability by reason. in the french tradition, he said, truth went along with clarté (that was before derrida i guess lol). the light of reason. "clear truths." self-evident. transparency not caves.

so, i think less tiefe and more clarté would help things a whole lot and make them more available for public comment. like @scott2 says, community feedback and testing are important. in open societies anyway.

[AxelHeyst]

Jacob's been pretty clear that he's not interested in making this any easier to understand than he already has. Can we please not turn this thread into a criticism of the grokkability of ERE? Perhaps we can start a thread specifically designed for criticism of how difficult this material is to understand, so those of us who are willing to root around a disorganized forum for gems can avoid it?

[Alphaville]

Jacob's been pretty clear that he's not interested in making this any easier to understand than he already has. Can we please not turn this thread into a criticism of the grokkability of ERE? Perhaps we can start a thread specifically designed for criticism of how difficult this material is to understand, so those of us who are willing to root around a disorganized forum for gems can avoid it?

i'd rather start a thread about organizing "gems" into a clear comprehensible whole that is readable in the common tongue.

well, i'm already attempting this by way of asking questions.

also im not talking about ere as a whole, just the parts outside/beyond the book/post-publication.

also im not just talking about difficulty of presentation, but about theories of unknown/undiscovered objects.

also i'm talking of knowledge production as a social dialectical process requiring openness *and antifragility* to review.

i.e. the more a theory gets reviewed the stronger it becomes.

last, i do not approach this as a bible where one hunts for fitting verses for every occasion but as a process of organization of knowledge as a coherent comprehensive whole self-evident to reason.

[IlliniDave]

for me it's not so much a solution in search of a problem but a theory in search of an object.

in science, as far as i've been trained, observation precedes a hypothesis, and it's the successive observation and testing that finally yields a theory.

No worries. I've never been trained in any sort of philosophy, much less that of science. I think you're getting at a deeper truth that lies below the observations I was basing my comparison on. One simple example would be: for a while among engineers 3-D printers were all the rage. A lot were purchased without having any object it made sense to use them to fabricate. It took a while for the associated technology to catch up with the traditional alternatives. Once people started wanting to make objects where printers offered the best, or at least a competitive solution, the space blossomed.

[Alphaville]

No worries. I've never been trained in any sort of philosophy, much less that of science. I think you're getting at a deeper truth that lies below the observations I was basing my comparison on. One simple example would be: for a while among engineers 3-D printers were all the rage. A lot were purchased without having any object it made sense to use them to fabricate. It took a while for the associated technology to catch up with the traditional alternatives. Once people started wanting to make objects where printers offered the best, or at least a competitive solution, the space blossomed.

yeah, you're making a good analogy, i dig it.

here what is see is that we're being presented a theory for an object that doesn't exist yet, or hasn't been described fully/accurately yet.

a fully formed theory is supposed to throw up predictably results for an experiment (a bit like a printer: for each determined input a predictable outcome of a printed object.)

the difference as i see it is that we knew what a 3d object was before we made the printers. i mean 3d objects are all around us and we know what they are. so while practical use was somewhat distant, it was possible to make the connection from tool to application eventually.

here otoh we don't seem to know what these higher ere "levels" are, but we're making printers for them.

i think these higher post-ere developments are of course possible, and exist, but i think that observation, description, exploration, in other words natural history ought to precede the theory-formulation phase. this is why i think "starting from wheaton" apriori misleads. this is also why the table is not self-evident.

each object, observed, ought to give birth to its own theory. if lives, or aspects of lives, or communities of lives, go beyond the original formulations of the ere book... then i think we're at the stage of observation/exploration/data gathering rather than formulation. especially the farther they evolve, which ought to be a continuum of development.

@jacob could formulate ere backwards, having lived it, but formulating forward is harder or impossible because we're dealing with things of accreting complexity which as @scott2 says cannot be predicted into the future.

to add: it's okay to propose a hypothesis as a model for something unknown, in order to have something to grasp on, but a hypothesis is for testing and disproving, not for predicting (a hypothesis is not a theory).

[theanimal]

i'd rather start a thread about organizing "gems" into a clear comprehensible whole that is readable in the common tongue.

.......
......

This thread is for discussing systems and how to better integrate it into one's lifestyle. Nobody is discouraging those topics that you mention but perhaps it'll be better off in a new thread elsewhere.

For example, if you are interested in discussing the wheaton levels themselves, I suggest the ERE wheaton scale thread

[Alphaville]

This thread is for discussing systems and how to better integrate it into one's lifestyle. Nobody is discouraging those topics that you mention but perhaps it'll be better off in a new thread elsewhere.

For example, if you are interested in discussing the wheaton levels themselves, I suggest the ERE wheaton scale thread

haha no i attempted there already and was told that habemus papam.

my thing here was when @7w5 said she was having difficulty moving " levels" i asked wht was her purpose.

[7Wannabe5]

=“Scott 2” I would bet you intuitively protect capacity for change

I even protect my capacity for my capacity for change, like silly putty, so I need my plastic shell, I can’t just be tossed into a crumb filled junk drawer with a bunch of dull pencils and loose screws.