ERE Within Greenish-Yellow Perspective

[7Wannabe5]

I just finished this excellent series of videos recommended by guitarplayer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOihmrWz_4c

Brett Scott published a series The Economy: A User's Guide. It covers things from libertarianism and modern corporate capitalism through permaculture to metamodernism, and much more.

I tend towards thinking of ERE as a quite generalized map. So, it can be interesting to place it within other quite generalized maps and vice-versa. Brett Scott, who in a previous life worked with derivatives market in realm of finance, seems to be towards the David Graeber school of Anthropological Economics as opposed to the Econ 101 school of Economics-Works-Much-Like-Physics, so starts from a premise of interdependence rather than independence which approaches Level Yellow/Blue from Level Green by the last video in the series, even though Scott is clearly not a fan of "hierarchy."

PLOT REVEAL WARNING

This series contains some excellent basic visualizations of cash flow within corporate capitalist economy. One point Scott makes in reference to these diagrams that is quite relevant to ERE is that most humans in this complex system don't grok how the various roles they may hold in the economy relate and create tension with each other, because our mapping of our Consumer web only extends to nearest nodes, and the same holds true for our mappings of our Investor, Worker, Supplier, Citizen, etc. nodes. IOW, our interdependence is so extreme/complex it almost forces us into a mindset of imagining ourselves as Independent agents, and then we slip into the bad habit of accepting this simplification as an aspect of reality.

I also found a couple of his organized lists rather interesting as maps within or without to consider ERE.

Modes of Interdependence (within economy)

1) Reproduction
2) Production
3) Distribution
4) Consumption

From my perspective, and also Scott's based on his arguments for Interdependence as primary assumption, Reproduction is really where the rubber hits the road. I mean, Scott does argue that it is very difficult for any human to survive/thrive/succeed on their own, but it is literally and obviously impossible for humans to independently reproduce and raise themselves as economic units/agents and a good deal of our economic activity must always be towards this end. So, when an independent-minded Level Orangey-Yellow soul complains, "Those Level Green people can't do anything without first forming a group.", an appropriate response might be, "Well, no human can do anything without first being part of a group."

Five Paradigms of Change (towards addressing problems associated with Level Orange/Modernity/Capitalism)

1) Going With the Dominant Flow: Market Solutions
2) Managing and Reforming
3) Rejecting and Replacing: Anti-Capitalism
4) Counterbalancing
5) Evolving

This is the most complex taping generalized-maps into something like a Moebius strip juncture. At first, it seems fairly easy to just place ERE maybe somewhere between Counterbalancing and Evolving on this list, but as Scott notes, there are many different strands that may be combined into "bottom-up" Counterbalancing solutions, and an Evolving perspective, such as held in Metamodernism or Integral Theory will itself contain or transcend the first four options on this list. Scott notes that the modern economy is inherent of aspects of Ouroborus, the snake eating its own tail, and these Five Paradigms of Change also reflect this tendency, especially if you include AI as a market solution within and without of (1.)

[Stasher]

Was there an original ERE thread on the discussing the color levels so that I can defamiliarize myself with them? It is used a lot lately in many different discussions as a frame of reference for the many topics happening at ERE. Back in 2021 it was the Wheaton levels that was most used as reference or is this possibly just the colors that refer to those levels? Thanks in advance

[jacob]

@Stasher - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dy ... nal_theory

Also recommend https://www.amazon.com/Spiral-Dynamics- ... 1405133562 if you can get your hands on it.

If you're more of a listener than a reader, actualized has a 2hr+ video for each color. Just google for something like "youtube actualized spiral dynamics [specific color]".

[AxelHeyst]

Also (since it's been a while), we sorted out that general good forum etiquette is to take it easy on the Color Theory stuff in general threads that are not in the Emergent Renaissance Ecology (aka ERE2) sub-forum. E.g. just going all-out on SD:green-yellow hybrid with HRC5.5 response to a thread about something more practical/tangible in the skills forum would be bad form.

But anything goes in the ERE2 subforum wrt all the models and color theory stuff - it's considered "safe/acceptable" to let er rip in here.

[7Wannabe5]

Another thought I had while viewing this series is that Scott's take on the tension or trade-offs between the multiple roles we hold in modern economy relates to FIRE in the sense that as we reduce our stake in the roles of Worker and Consumer, we should experience less tension and trade-off in our role as Investor. However, if we then focus in on our role as Citizen in the Public sector, our roles as Taxpayer and/or Service/Protection Recipient may also come into more conscious tension. It has been my experience that this sort of perspective shift on tension can occur even at the most micro-level, as when my very small income-producing role shifted from primarily business owner to primarily employee in the public sector. It is difficult to look beyond the influence of the nodes that directly surround you (or the work in front of you and the frustrations that apply) and freely choose the manner or mode in which you prefer to be influenced or find motive.

[jacob]

I haven't watched the videos. As someone who also worked trading derivatives in high finance, will I learn something new about how the plumbing of the economic system works by spending the time watching all those videos? (I do not innately enjoy "watching".)

Both orange and green have a myopic interpretation of social systems. For orange, the basic atom is that of the individual which tends to lead to either being oblivious to group-effects or forming entire philosophies bent on denying them (E.g. Margaret Thatcher's "There's no such thing as society").

For green, the basic atom and the starting point for all things theoretical and practical is the group. This tends to lead to being blind to individual effects or volition. (E.g. believing without doubt that by coming together we get smarter as a whole. And taking for granted that individuals will magically appear to carry out the collective will of the group.)

With Green trending towards Yellow, there's a dawning realization that, yes, ultimately, some individual(s) actually have to do the work; some individuals have to pay the cost. You see this in the green-yellow sociocracy model wherein after much time has been spent developing consensus between ALL the stakeholders, the actual work is handed over to one or two (no more) expert work-horses who are then left to build the actual project. It is at this stage realized that actually "getting shit done" is better done by a just few individuals. Green-Yellow has realized that very little actual work gets done through "meetings".

On a broader level, with Yellow arising in Green, there's also the dawning realization that "money and resources don't grow on trees". That is, hard choices have to made. Helping or including everyone is very expensive and there's a beginning acceptance that the marginal cost of helping and including the last person in the "circle" (however big it is) is too expensive to be sustainable.

The basic problem Green faces is holding on to the few productive/competent individuals that usually gets the group's stuff done either by doing the work or paying the cost to get it done. Once these [Orange or Yellow individuals] catch on to the game and realize that "yes, I can actually do this better and faster on my own", they're out of there. (Unlike Blue, Green has no mechanism for holding onto everyone. People can leave at any time. The worst Green can do to someone is to "withhold their love" or group membership) This leaves pure Green constantly dealing with brain drain and being "passed the buck". Dealing with this is a widespread challenge for Green arrangements at any level. It is a known pattern.

Much like Orange forgot the importance of caring for the weakest members of society, Green forgets to care for the strongest members of society, who do most of the pulling.

In terms of how ERE can connect with Green in an actionable way, just remember that greens fundamental atomic perspective for all practical and theoretical purposes is the group. Green is loath to think in terms of what anyone can do individually.

But ... I suspect you were just looking for a mapping between the concepts of the OP vid and the concepts in the ERE book. For all I can see, it seems like a 1-1 mapping should be trivial. E.g. chapter 7 describes the cycle of "extraction", "production", "consumption", "decomposition". This is the standard biological cycle. The "interdependence" list covers three quarters of that.

And so on ...

The paradigms describe generalized emergence using a thesis-antithesis [Hegelian] constructor. ERE1 uses the perspective of what an individual can do. It's certainly possible to use the perspective of what a group can do. However, it is much easier to convince individuals than it is to convince an entire group. Individuals can be swayed by Te arguments. "Working" a group tends to require a sustained Fe effort of backroom politics---ironically for all the group consensus, clever Green operators realize that their personally preferred group consensus is better achieved by meeting members of the group individually in backroom conversations.

[7Wannabe5]

I haven't watched the videos. As someone who also worked trading derivatives in high finance, will I learn something new about how the plumbing of the economic system works by spending the time watching all those videos? (I do not innately enjoy "watching".)

If you have read David Graeber, "Debt: The First 5000 Years" and "The Dawn of Everything", I doubt you will encounter anything entirely new in the video series. However, there was something about Scott's synthesis and presentation that I found compelling. Maybe because I have not infrequently found myself engaged in debates when presenting ERE concepts with others who have read Graeber, Piketty, Klein, etc. and Scott puts forth the "interdependence is core" argument more effectively than others. IOW, if one wanted to argue the importance of individual effects or volition, Scott has succinctly covered the points to be opposed.

The basic problem Green faces is holding on to the few productive/competent individuals that usually gets the group's stuff done either by doing the work or paying the cost to get it done. Once these [Orange or Yellow individuals] catch on to the game and realize that "yes, I can actually do this better and faster on my own", they're out of there. (Unlike Blue, Green has no mechanism for holding onto everyone. People can leave at any time. The worst Green can do to someone is to "withhold their love" or group membership) This leaves pure Green constantly dealing with brain drain and being "passed the buck". Dealing with this is a widespread challenge for Green arrangements at any level. It is a known pattern.

I feel like with a few noun exchanges this could be an excerpt from a manual on social problems related to Deadbeat Dads within relationship therapy. IOW, I think it has less to do with Orange-> Green -> Yellow in particular, and more to do with the general tendency of the spiral to move from masculine energy to feminine energy and then back to masculine energy with each color change in the spiral. At the lowest level moving from Survival to Clan is the nature/nurture process through which the males of our species accept some minimal responsibility for paternity. I mean, adult human males can live alone in the woods like ill-humored stinky loner raccoons, but mostly they don't.

I also think that as somebody who grew up in a mature Level Green society, you are grasping a different part of the elephant than, for example, the average American. And I think the part of the elephant most likely grasped on to relates to Hanzi's take that as each Level in the spiral historically emerges (within given setting) it is first expressed by the Artists/Philosophers at the fringe, eventually moves into Politics, and is finally expressed as the dull center of Mass Morality. So, obviously, once it has become the water in which you are swimming, it has also become stupider because-widely-adopted. Therefore, my perspective on Level Green is more cognizant of its early intelligence (hand on the elephant's nimble trunk or books written by some radical 1970s intellectuals) and your perspective is likely more cognizant of its late stupidity (hand on the elephant's ass or endless hug circle community meeting.)

The final stupid phase of Level Yellow has also already been hypothesized in developmental theory. It's pretty easy to imagine a million individuals waggling big complex webs of goals that do not integrate well with others'.

[jacob]

I feel like with a few noun exchanges this could be an excerpt from a manual on social problems related to Deadbeat Dads within relationship therapy. IOW, I think it has less to do with Orange-> Green -> Yellow in particular, and more to do with the general tendency of the spiral to move from masculine energy to feminine energy and then back to masculine energy with each color change in the spiral. At the lowest level moving from Survival to Clan is the nature/nurture process through which the males of our species accept some minimal responsibility for paternity. I mean, adult human males can live alone in the woods like ill-humored stinky loner raccoons, but mostly they don't.

As far as I understand "masculine" and "feminine" energies here, they just translate into "self-focused" and "other-focused". The spiral oscillates between individualism and collectivism. The oscillation comes about because at some point too many feel disenfranchised by the current regime. For example, Blue with its fixed world order (great chain of being, serfdom) eventually had too many ambitious people and this begat Orange. Orange eventually overreached leaving enough unproductive people behind that it could not go any longer. This begat Green with its welfare and general inclusiveness. This all-inclusiveness and lack of hierarchy sacrificed the competent who eventually struck out on their own and formed Yellow. And so on ...

I also think that as somebody who grew up in a mature Level Green society, you are grasping a different part of the elephant than, for example, the average American. And I think the part of the elephant most likely grasped on to relates to Hanzi's take that as each Level in the spiral historically emerges (within given setting) it is first expressed by the Artists/Philosophers at the fringe, eventually moves into Politics, and is finally expressed as the dull center of Mass Morality. So, obviously, once it has become the water in which you are swimming, it has also become stupider because-widely-adopted. Therefore, my perspective on Level Green is more cognizant of its early intelligence (hand on the elephant's nimble trunk or books written by some radical 1970s intellectuals) and your perspective is likely more cognizant of its late stupidity (hand on the elephant's ass or endless hug circle community meeting.)

I have dealt with both. The mature version is more institutionalized: "This is just the way of things". The juvenile version is more ideological: "This is THE answer. We must apply it to everything and everyone." If Orange is the enemy, then in the former case, it has been defeated, whereas in the latter case it must be fought. The juvenile stage has some Red in it and of course a bunch of intellectualism. The mature stage has incorporated the intellectual ideas in its culture: Now it's just tradition and expectation with no need to fight.

So, for example, juvenile Green will be rather explicit about using a decision model like sociocracy, elaborately teaching all the participants about it. Juvenile Green will talk at length about the wonders of the circle and the talking stick to give equal time to for everybody to express their innate wisdom; of course everybody is welcome join the circle. With mature Green, there's no obvious alternative to the circle---everybody is already in it. The leader is not there to lead explicitly but instead to basically balance the teams with competent individuals and incompetent individuals and say the magic words "lets work on this together". The leader will also run part of the backroom politics and take care of each person's "individual development". The option for individuals to be "a team of one" is not mentioned. The very idea of someone not wanting to be part of the team is almost unthinkable---so nobody thinks it. (This is also where you get statements like: "Nobody can do anything on their own". The idea of doing=together has become ingrained.)

The dynamics is the same. The difference is that the structure is explicit in the juvenile case and implicit in the mature case.

[7Wannabe5]

As far as I understand "masculine" and "feminine" energies here, they just translate into "self-focused" and "other-focused".

I don't want to quibble over "ownership" of the spiral model, but I did encounter this transition described as "masculine"/"feminine" in some towards original book on the topic. And this seems coherent to me, because the first books I read by adherents to the similar Integral model were very much focused on how at Level Yellow/Tier 2 one becomes self-aware about the development and social integration of one's own internal "masculine" and "feminine" energies. So beyond "self-focused" and "other-focused", other important concepts would pertain, such as the desire to be "respected" vs. the desire to be "cherished." The obvious reason why the "feminine" energy is more collectively-focused is that the embodied feminine self is inherently more vulnerable, not to be confused with weak (The verdant port was vulnerable. The barren mountaintop was invulnerable.), but also more critically valuable for the reproduction of the economic unit. Also, this dichotomy make very clear why issues like whether those who have gender transitioned should be allowed to participate in gender-defined sporting events are so hot-button in current U.S. political scene.

The juvenile stage has some Red in it and of course a bunch of intellectualism.

Yes, so it is also very sexy. At the edge where Level Green Art/Intellectualism is first being popularized in my childhood realm, you find Mick Jagger strutting like a peacock, and quickly switching from his masculine pitch to falsetto, as he performs "Sympathy for the Devil." At the edge where it is first being legitimized (enforced by Mum and Dad, ergo rendered less sexy within context), you find bureaucratic manuals on the usage of gender pronouns being distributed at college induction event.

"The personal is political" is another truism held at Level Green, and this obviously also extends to the concept of economics. Another framework that Scott presents in the video series is that our economic exchanges are generally either (1) Communal, (2) Reciprocal, or (3) Hierarchal/Patronage. The example he offers is that we tend towards communally sharing food with our families, reciprocally picking up the dinner tab with our friends, and accepting a free dinner out provided by our employer. Unfortunately,* I have become somebody who is hyper-aware of this framework within my own relationships, and also somewhat aware of how this is to some extend neurochemically mediated (as has been analogously explicated elsewhere in reference to MBTI) in terms of testosterone, vasopressin, oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, etc. So, for example, I comprehend in terms of SD/MBTI/Chemistry/Political Economy Personalized/Etc. why the second-generation ESFJ Greek guy I was dating actually became a bit angry because I paid for my own coffee at a rest-stop while in his company.

Anyways, I almost certainly may not be connecting the dots very well here, but I think this all somehow apples to the difficulties often discussed in The Family and Friends section of this forum, and this somehow relates to my sense that there is a bit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if Level Green is rejected or reacted against too rigorously at Level Yellow or if the balance on the University campus become too North Campus Engineering vs. Central Campus Humanities. For simple example, if you consider whether you (as an individual node in the network) are more motivated by the desire to be respected or the desire to be cherished, this will inform your economic activity, but the self-respect you may earn by chopping enough wood to ensure the survival of future-you through the winter may not prove adequate, so next you maybe find yourself posting a photo of your fine pile on the interweb, or pointing to it as you welcome a human summoned via Tinder, etc. IOW, according to Level Yellow sexual dichotomy theory, "respect" (or some close and/or made more complex variant) is generally what "the more competent in their 'doing' individual" who would otherwise be motivated to strike out on his own core desires from the Level Green or Level Blue or Level Purple collective.


*There are days I wish I could just go stupid@orange and believe in "kismet" etc. or do a hard flip from 98% N to 98% S and just live the fun, happy bad-girl life of a stereotypical slutty, alcoholic, eStP high school cheerleader (sigh.)