What is ERE2?

[AxelHeyst]

I happen to think that some are ripe for more advanced nonconsumer praxis, and assume they would be welcome here. If they (and me) had questions that pointed at WLs or SDs out of whack with this subgroup, I would hope that they (and me) would be gently redirected to helpful ERE1 threads or other sources.

100% yes to both of these!

And meantime, maybe there's perspectives outside of the more traditional ERE trajectory that will be helpful to the whole.

Also 100% yes. Jacob's mentioned once or twice that in the 'early' days of the forum the makeup was a bit more diverse than it represents as now - and I bet, although have no way of proving it, that that diversity was a huge contribution to the health and strength of the ERE movement.

My guess is that we're likely to see more people and more different types of people showing up here in the near future as things continue to get more obviously uncertain/unstable etc. As more people becoming interested in collapsing now and avoiding the rush as you said, as well as other motivations. There's no one right reason to want to be here. I am really excited for this. I trust that this community will be welcoming and that many people can find a place here where we can support/encourage/etc each other.

[jacob]

The answer to the OP question will emerge once enough renaissance people establish an ecology.

Without handing over a definition of what I think that answer will be so people can short-cut and pursue it directly(*), here's how I see my role in all this.

(*) Indeed, this approach is a bit akin to the problem with the Wheaton table, which was originally intended to identify people's level of insight/framework in order to better community across the stages, to being used as a curriculum. Someone mentioned Goodhart's Law, the consequences of which are to be avoided.

In terms of steps, it's clear that there's some order to the statement that the "answer to the OP question will emerge once enough renaissance people establish an ecology", namely

1. Make or attract more renaissance people (these are two strategies with the same outcome)
2. Establish and maintain an ecology
3. Support/suggest different kinds of emergence to increase the complexity of the ecology

Concrete examples of (1) include blogging, podcasting, writing a book, ... and basically "educating" people in postconsumer praxis. This is not just me (jacob) doing this.

Concrete examples of (2) include running this forum (which is an ecology) and making sure it is large enough for people to interact frequently; hence the need to avoid darknetting or toxic posting ... the analogies should be clear. Basically, the idea here is to create and maintain a medium for a renaissance culture to grow. Obviously, this could also be done as a physical community, but I think this is more challenging than gathering people on the internet. An example of a successful IRL ecology is MMM's coworking space.

Concrete examples of (3) include the MMGs, the physical meetups, the travel thread, and the swapping threads. These would not exist if it wasn't for a thriving ecology. These are essentially emerging ideas that could not have happened in isolation. Once the ideas were recognized, they were supported... basically a spark of an emergence best develops if it is supported. However, it must also be managed so as not to destroy the underlying fabric that made it possible. E.g. darknetting ... or the emergence of an oxygen producing bacteria that drove all anaerobic lifeforms underground.

So I think of emergence as the next stage of a "pyramid" that builds on a solid foundation.

Now, what if that foundation is not made out of renaissance people. Well, first of all, I don't want to be the one to say what someone either is or is not. This begets the same level of confusion and controversy as [misunderstanding] the MBTI. Renaissance behavior exists on a scale. If you think of it as an ecology, it is clear that if you introduce too many, who aren't very renaissance (lets say 10-30% rather than 50-80%), into an ecology, the ecology becomes something else and consequentially you'll have an "emergent something-else ecology".

To give an example of how such an evolution of a new paradigm may fail, if the ecology becomes completely inclusive whether by dumbing down the message to include the mainstream for commercial purposes (orange) or by accepting everybody who can fog a mirror out of ideological purposes (green), the kind of interactions will change as the ecology mostly starts focusing on "101"-stuff. The minority of "401" people will never be able to burn off the endless fog that is "how do I start investing" or "how do I join a community"-type questions.

Also, if the ecology gets chopped up into smaller groups or circles ... it will reduce the complexity of interactions and the kinds of species much like intersecting a forest with a bunch of roads that are hard to cross simplifies the ecology. Even though the ecology is almost the same size, it will not be as rich as before if starting smaller cliques becomes popular. In that case you will have "collapsing renaissance ecology".

I consider my role in ERE2 to tune the sliders of the the three dimensions available to maximize "interesting connections" and "complexity". That is not to say that this is all ERE2 is. It's just where my talents are. I tried for a while with some more direct "community organizing", but it turns out I suck at it because for the most part I don't enjoy the nitty-gritty of talking to people all the time. But these efforts are also needed and fits in with the overall theme of 1-2-3. As such people can play any role they want in this.

[Jin+Guice]

Aha!

Ok, renaissance person is the term I needed.

This is how I think of the terms:

o2 mask on: WL5+. Money is (more or less) a solved problem.
Renaissance person: Some type of WL6+ skills (i.e. could solve at least some problems without money). Money not necessary a solved problem.

o2 mask + renaissance person = WL9.

o2 mask + figuring out how to be a renaissance person = WL6-8

Is this roughly correct?

What I have been trying to ask is whether or not people with a lot of renaissance skills who have not yet necessarily fully escaped the consumer praxis (because this is again terminology and goals we made up, that are not widely accepted) are included ERE2.

Also, I get that we are looking for the initial conditions that beget ERE2 and can't define what will happen because we don't know what will happen yet.

I'm asking what are the qualities of the people we want to gather so the initial conditions are met!

Based on the answer to that question, I have follow up questions and, potentially, follow up actions.

I'm sure it's defined somewhere, but perhaps a definition of Renaissance People would be helpful in this post? If ERE2 initial conditions is "an ecology of renaissance people."

[7Wannabe5]

I think renaissance person would be akin to "jack of all trades, master of some." So, for instance, neither your random African villager who is reasonably happy because relatively wealthy in his neighborhood living on $6000/year, nor your random PhD, nor the sort of middling middle-class generalist who might show up in any random grab of ENTPs (natural generalist types) or other "scanner" or "plate-spinner" types who might (like me) have been led to "ERE" (the book) through the path of reading "The Renaissance Soul:Lifestyle Design for People with Too Many Passions to Pick Just One."

[jacob]

This is how I think of the terms:

o2 mask on: WL5+. Money is (more or less) a solved problem.
Renaissance person: Some type of WL6+ skills (i.e. could solve at least some problems without money). Money not necessary a solved problem.

o2 mask + renaissance person = WL9.

o2 mask + figuring out how to be a renaissance person = WL6-8

Is this roughly correct?

In terms of Wheaton tables, I think ERE1 starts at WL6 and ends at WL8.

WL6: Develop multidisciplinary skill set to an EFFECTIVE level expanding beyond monospecialization (getting good enough to be self-reliant in a few areas) (every skill still in its own box)
WL7: Turn multidisciplinary skill set into a transdisciplinary skill set, that is, coordinating the different skills to solve new/different problems (integrate boxes to a system)
WL8: Close the loops in terms of resource use of WL7 that is integrate with the environment that the transdisciplinary skill set exists in. (the is basically full ERE1 in an environment of non-ERE1)

Basically, at WL8, I don't see anymore that one person can do on their own.

Orange WL1-5 looks different (see table) from Green WL1-5 (TBD). Orange WL5 = FIRE/FU money, whereas Green WL5 might be full membership of a mutual aid community, where takes care of the children, another makes the money, another fixes the roof.

The oxygen mask is a good way to think about WL5. Not having to come up for air all the time (worry about money for orange, worry about the community membership for green) is a required condition for ERE1.

ERE2 begins at WL9 and ends at WL10 or WLinf. In the current environment, this is a person who is interesting/attractive enough to be invited into any number of different communities/movements, probably by another WL8 who recognizes a fellow being. Their "community" is essentially "all communities" or at least a N>1 one of them. A scientist, for example, would be welcome at any number of research communities around the world. They're not rooted to one particular department in one particular university. They belong everywhere due to how they think and what they think about---not due to who they know and who knows them; or who they're related to by DNA or marriage.

I'm asking what are the qualities of the people we want to gather so the initial conditions are met!

This almost sounds like a hiring question. One can either "hire" people with potential hoping to train them into the right form, or one can "hire" people who already has the right form. Obviously, WL7-10 already has this. WL6 has potential. WL1-5 (regardless of color) has the potential to be WL6.

Personally, I've rarely "brought people in" IRL. Indeed, most people I know IRL (WL1-3) have no idea what ERE is and I've made no effort to explain it. Instead I've cast a wide net on the interwebs and tried to train people up instead. Not to say that "bringing along friends" or "knocking on doors" won't work, but I don't know how.

The anti-question is who not to "hire". This is where I need to be careful. More than one mistake has been made in that regard. The typical answer would be people who aren't really committed. People who'll be gone again as soon as they got what they wanted. People who aren't sure what they want. People who are bored or flaky or dare I say needy.

However, and this is my personal bias speaking. 7wb5 mentioned that the typical transition is Scientist->Leader->Helper. If so, I'm SOL. I definitely struggle with Green's personal and ideological need to "include incompetence" in order to feel helpful to the point where I often put my foot in my mouth. Apparently I can't hide that I see no value in being the Helper helping those who don't want to help themselves. Incompetence is basically my shadow and my anti-value. I'm fond of quoting how "if I lift one corner and the student does not lift the other 3, I do not continue". This makes it difficult for me to coordinate with people who'd rather be Helpers than solvers or leaders.

[7Wannabe5]

7wb5 mentioned that the typical transition is Scientist->Leader->Helper. If so, I'm SOL.

I was just describing the direction of growth arrows of the Enneagram model. I would note that even though this direction of growth aspect of the Enneagram model is embedded in my user name here, I am not completely sold on the validity of the more prescriptive rather than descriptive aspects of both Enneagram and MBTI or other similar models.



So, according to the direction of growth aspect of the Enneagram model, a human who is core The Scientist/Investigator would move to The Leader/Challenger then The Helper then The Individualist/Artist then The Reformer before finally landing at ability to integrate a healthy version of The Enthusiast. However, when under stress, The Scientist/Investigator will tend towards regressing to an unhealthy version of The Enthusiast.

This means that when 5s are healthy and growing they start taking on some of the healthy traits of type 8.

This can mean being more assertive, more self-confident, and more decisive. As well as more in touch with their bodies.

This means that when 8s are healthy and growing they start taking on some of the healthy traits of type 2.This can mean being more compassionate, more vulnerable, more thoughtful, and more open-hearted.

As a 7 heading towards growth at 5, my original stated mission in joining this forum as embedded in my username should have been akin to:

This means that when 7s are healthy and growing they start taking on some of the healthy traits of type 5.

This can mean being more focused, more restrained, more objective, and more okay with painful things.

I would tend towards giving myself a C-/D+ on my accomplishment of this goal , BUT doing that would be indicative of the even lower functioning I might exhibit by becoming increasingly self-critical towards Type 1 The Reformer/Judge. Much better to hold the growth perspective towards Type 5 of simply being curious about the factors related to my lack of progress

Anyway, circling back around to the topic at hand, the most obvious/conventional example of a Renaissance Person would simply be a very highly functioning Type 7, like Benjamin Franklin, a human who naturally has many different passions, and by exhibiting growth towards the self-discipline of The Investigator/Scientist manages to develop several of them to the level of Mastery. So, it would seem like the same could apply to the Type 5 moving towards Type 7, simply moving from self-disciplined Mastery in one realm to self-disciplined Mastery in another realm. However, the Enneagram growth model sez this ain't so, because Type 7 is actually the default direction of stress/decay for The Investigator/Scientist.

Type 5

Under Stress

Move to Seven

Stress impacts fives toward becoming easily distracted, insensitive, and withdrawn by spending too much time/money on their interests.

When Secure

Move to Eight

When fives feel secure, they will exude more energy and action, taking the initiative with a greater sense of living in the moment.

However, this model would also indicate that at the deepest level, a Renaissance Human would be somebody who has experienced growth in functioning around the wheel or through their MBTI stack, etc. etc.

[Bicycle7]

I'm not nearly as familiar with the Enneagram as I am with MBTI. I find it interesting to note that I test as a 5 (as an iNfj) and would assume most INTJs on the forum type as 5s. My EnFP friend tests as a 7 just as it sounds like ENTP correlates with 7. Enneagram has 9 categories compared to 16 for MBTI, so different MBTI types corresponding to the same Enneagram makes sense.

I feel more drawn to MBTI, though this might largely be because it's used so much more here and so I have a better command of it. I also feel like the iNfj description resonates more strongly than the Enneagram 5. Maybe 5 doesn't capture the feeling aspect of my type? The prescriptive part of enneagram I think to some degree checks out for me. I can find myself getting scattered and withdrawing, moving towards 7, when I struggle. For myself, moving towards 8 doesn't sound like a bad idea and I can see how that's the direction I'm trying to go in/have gone in when I'm growing.

[7Wannabe5]

@Bicycle7:

Yeah, the Enneagram is more basic. The Types on the right are supposed to be more F while the Types on the left are more T, so an INFJ would also often fall near the cusp of The Individualist/Artist and The Achiever. Think Leonard the more sensitive scientist from Big Bang Theory or Connell the more achievement-oriented artist from Normal People.

Anyways, if I were to assign myself the role of PR representative for ERE facing the Green community, I would note that the compassion and thoughtfulness of The Helper are already built into the model through the basic assumption that every human on the planet is entitled to approximately $7000 worth of spending/resource-burn per year, even though more than half of humanity does not even earn this much to spend each year. A less compassionate model would achieve the same result towards resource conservation by knocking everybody down a set percentage, thereby making the poor even poorer OR by just cutting off all of the top-spenders at max of around $30,000/year while keeping the poor at their same low level of spending.

[Jin+Guice]

Aha!

viewtopic.php?p=266578#p266578

(This is in the ERE2 FAQ, my bad. I think the issue is it's really hard to follow every link and read every thread and remember which links you've read and which links you haven't. On the other side, it's very difficult to remember where every post you've ever written is located and what those posts say).


From the above post (middle break mine to signal deleting some content in between):

We also realize that if we try to bring our ERE1 ideas to other valleys that are NOT inhabited by highly educated, high income, engineering-types, we're likely to get our head chopped off by the local residents who think our ways are evil and scary and will cause the downfall of their tribe because we dress weird and talk funny.

...

So the mission is to figure out why that is happening... and eventually how to not only avoid losing our heads but actually spread the ERE1 ideas in order to avoid being stuck in our own valley. Because our valley is small.

This post answers the question I was asking about, namely if we are trying to combine two or more people, who are the people we are trying to combine and why?

[AxelHeyst]

I'm re-reading the Osinga book on John Boyd's strategic theory and whoa it is so good. Pages 96 and 97 jumped out at me as relevant to understanding ERE2 as a complex adaptive system. Emphases and typos mine.

“These Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) co-evolve with the environment through self-organizing non-linear behavior of agents navigating ‘the fitness landscapes’. Under selective pressure the exhibit hierarchical self-organization. They also exhibit emergence: the interactions of agents may lead to emerging global properties that are strikingly different from the behaviors of individual agents. These properties cannot be predicted from prior knowledge of the agents. The global properties in turn affect the environment that each against ‘sees’, influencing the agents’ behaviors. A synergistic feedback loop is thus created; interactions between agents determine emerging global properties, which in turn influence the agents. Self-organization arises as the system reacts and adapts to its externally imposed environment… complex systems possess characteristics of both stable and chaotic systems. 

…it teaches modesty too, for it points to fundamental limits in our ability to understand, control and manage the world, and the need for us to accept unpredictability and change.” [Axel comment: this points at why so many non-complex approaches to fixing/saving/adapting to the world fail: they assume an ability to understand, control, and manage the world... this goes to Peter Limberg's point that a complex response is called for when the problem/issue/crisis is complex.]

...

Several other observations can be made about the make up and behavior of complex adaptive systems:
* They are systems that are networks of agents acting in parallel. In a brain the agents are nerve cells, in ecologies the agents are species, in an economy the agents are firms and individuals and even nations.
* Each agent find itself in an environment produced bu its interactions with the other agents in the system.
* It is constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing.
* And because of that essentially nothing is fixed in its environment.
* The control of complex systems is highly dispersed. There is not, for example, a master neuron in the brain.
* Organization within these systems is created by both competition and cooperation with other systems.
* A complex adaptive system has many levels of organizaiton, with agents at any one level serving as the building blocks for agents at a higher level. Cells will form a tissue, a collection of tissues will form an organ, organisms will form an ecosystem.
* Complex adaptive systems typically also have many niches, each one of which can be exploited by an agent adapted to fill that niche.
* There are intercommunicating layers within the hierarchy. Agenst exchange information in given levels of the hierarchy, and different levels pass information between themselves as well.
* correspondingly, the complex system has a number of disparate time and space scales.
* Complex system are constantly revising and rearranging their building blocks as they gain experience.
* complex adaptive systems anticipate the future.
* They exhibit coherence under change, via conditional action and anticipation. For this they employ internal models of the world (as in systems theory).
* the are characterized by rich patterns or tight, moderate and loosely coupled linkage. Chains of interdependency branch in complicated patterns among actors. this protects the system against environmental shock by providing multiple paths for action. If one pattern of interdependency in a network is disrupted, the dynamic performed by that subsystem can usually be rerouted to other areas of the network. This makes it difficult to damage or destroy the complex system, for complex interaction leads to amazing resilience.
* Complex systems are robust (or fit). They resist perturbation or invasion by other systems.
* Importantly, all operate in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, exhibiting entropy and winding down over time unless replenished with energy.

[figmenter]

To summarize the above: Complex Adaptive Systems are alive.

I have contemplated on mapping the different sectors of our global economy to my own body to a remarkable degree. I found: Mining & AG = digestive tract, cardiovascular system = transportation networks, nervous system = communication networks, cells = people & machines; and a few more correspondences.

It seems to me that the more interesting & surprising stuff only starts to happen at higher densities of agents/cells/alive ecological elements.

The Dutch meetup yesterday was 10 people. Out of 18 million living in NL. Viewed in this way, it seems to me that we have some ways to go for an ERE2 ecology to emerge from only ERE1 minded individuals.

Not that it hasn't been done before: Jesus and Siddhartha/Buddha started out teaching only to close friends. Their respective teachings started two world religions and over time these became ecologies of their own with associated structures. Both endure to this day.

Why is that?

My take: the simplicity of the message and it's direct application to ones life. Also, the barrier to entry is low: to meditate or pray, simply sit down for a set period of time and observe your mind / repeat a mantra or prayer. That's it. Anyone could do it. Everything else flows from this "simple" praxis. And it resonated with people.

[7Wannabe5]

"Scale: The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies" by Geoffrey West and "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision" by Capra and Luigi may also be of related interest.

One of the major reasons the analogy between organisms and organizations breaks down at a certain level is that homeostasis, reproduction, and death are more hard-wired into an organism. For instance, you do not have to consciously determine how your body will obtain new brain cells, but Google does have to determine how to recruit new employees.

An organization of living agents, such as a monastery, which does not have a means for internally reproducing its agents and/or a barrier to entry, is more like an organ within an organism, so its relationship to the whole must also be determined. As Greer noted in "The Long Descent", monasteries were resilient and able to perform their purpose of maintenance of cultural/spiritual literacy, because they mainly recruited from the affluent (there was a cost in $$ to join), vow of poverty combined with disciplined work and skill acquisition created reserves (monks rarely went hungry), and they provided services to the powerful, the affluent, travellers, orphans, and the poor. So, there were few other large interest groups or organizations likely to believe it was in their self-interest to attack or loot a monastery. If/when an organ of society has a high barrier to entry, consolidated reserves, but no plan for providing some level of benefit to society as a whole, you get the French Revolution and/or group of local kids stoned on meth raiding your prepper cabin.

This is why those in the preparedness community who recognize that no plan for community or social services at Level Green means default to Level Blue suggest joining a local church in the community where your prepper cabin is located. It has been my experience that showing up as a substitute teacher, tutor, or regular volunteer in the local/neighborhood school system has the same effect, whether in rural "left behind and emptying out" environment or urban "refugee/immigrants flowing in too quickly" environment. Of course, my success is in good part due to the fact that even though my V-Meme is centered at Green/Yellow (Hippie Intellectual Weirdo), I hold full complement of Old School Midwestern Church Lady skills and manners, and tend to jump right in any situation where diaper changing, casserole baking, garden maintaining, or craft-making is needful. In my neck of the woods, being naive/stuck at Level Green to the extent that, for instance, you won't associate with somebody who voted for Trump, won't fly. The last manifestation of my polyamorous circle included an affluent PhD who immigrated from Iran, an affluent mechanical engineer who did vote for Trump, and an affluent former Presbyterian minister who founded a social justice non-profit, because I was trying to provide myself with multiple "escape tunnels" and a balance of financial stocks with the other members of my social/community circle being disadvantaged kids, broke-azz Bohemians, and permaculture hippies. IOW, it was an extremely messy, not thoroughly well-thought-out model based on the Provider/Protector:Nurturer:Vulnerable triad or social guild, rather than the highly Individualistic model where you are your own Daddy, Mommy and future you is the Baby. But, the post-modern practice of polyamory, increases resilience and freedom/autonomy of The Nurturer by allowing for several independent and varied "husbands" or Patrons, rather than just 1, while retaining the possibility of caring for multiple "babies." OTOH, it also provides some level of fulfillment of the typical heterosexual male fantasy of being shipwrecked on island with three females as carrot, whereas the monastery model offers only, sometimes quite literally, a stick in relationship to this basic human need.

Therefore, my modest proposal would be that at the boundary of ERE2, some proportion of excess financial and/or time stocks should be used to integrate Nurturers into the community (initial trial level might be ratio of 3 Providers/Individualists to 1 Nurturer/Communitarian) and for redistribution/flow to the Vulnerable (nature, disadvantaged kids, the arts) at the boundary. Of course, this will both require and continue the pattern of reduced consumption through skill acquisition at the individual level.