🐈

A good social structure allows various types of brilliance to be accepted so these individuals can experience "wholeness". e.g. if your brilliance is having a "particular set of skills" like Liam Neeson. Then a society that respects soldiers/cops channels that shadow usefully.

Intellectual brilliance similarly is an attempt to be "whole".https://twitter.com/a_yawning_cat/status/1333339180601020416?s=20 …

Where brilliance burns and hurts the most however is creative brilliance. e.g. the tortured artist archetype. This is because while the intellectual/soldier can beat up people with mind/body, the creative cannot project shadow violently b/c of the need for recognition.

Writers, musicians, or actors for example cannot insult their fans. A successful creative stands within the "Center". A soldier/intellectual on the other hand stands at the "Top".

The soldier/intellectual capstones a hierarchy of value where others try to be more like those above through followership. Creatives however are fundamentally alone even in the middle of the crowd. They are trying to be *seen* more than lead.

These two models can mix. Nassim Taleb for example is followed by some b/c of his "strength" at bullying pseudo-intellectuals. To the point where even people who dislike his philosophy will still read his stuff. Famous actors similarly, are role models for many.

Distance to "Center" can also be a hierarchy of value with. E.g. status/popularity hierarchies. This hierarchy is special since it's not rooted in external standards like say a scientist/pianist/fighter-pilot. It's "fashionable" (though not arbitrary)

When energy is directed from Top stable hierarchies to intrinsically more ephemeral Center stable hierarchies, you gain flexibility at the cost of constant anxiety.https://twitter.com/a_yawning_cat/status/1336439370648186880 …