27 May 2008 @ 14:45, by John Ringland
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
In a recent
conversation here on NCN I indirectly learnt a great deal. Even
though it was not what one would call a functional conversation it
was nevertheless a very interesting experience...
Below is an article compiled from my part in the conversation. It
addresses many issues that are central to the conduct of a
progressive discourse, which can result in cooperative solution
seeking that is grounded in reality and can be genuinely effective
even in the face of cynical attacks and denial. These are just
thoughts on the matter.
Thoughts on Navigating the Paradigm
Shift
Sections:
Things
Looking Bleak? Try a different outlook
Background
information to ensure that we are “on the same page”...
Where's
the evidence?
Ego and
Authoritarianism
Cynicism
is a Cancer within the Collective Discourse
Beyond
Activism and into Beingism
Things Looking
Bleak? Try a different outlook.
Despite the many crises
in the world, I happen to have an outlook on the world that leads me
to see great progress being made in a growing number of ways. I feel
it may be useful to share a little of this outlook here.
In terms of traditional
activism and response the progressive movement doesn't seem to be
making many profound changes on a global scale as many hope it will
but in a subtly different way things are changing. One must look
through a systemic perspective at the global patterns forming to
discern this. We traditionally conceive of things from a human
perspective but the universe operates on all systemic levels from
energy to particles to humans to galaxies and beyond. Our perspective
is not a privileged one.
Given the nature of the
process that we are undergoing there are no traditional solutions.
This time we need to dig deeper – beyond our habitual assumptions
and subtle self-deceptions. We need to re-imagine things anew. This
is the current front line of global transformation as I see it. It is
too soon for effective and open mass action (the kind that is very
visible) because the foundations of the new paradigm are still
forming. The problem cannot be solved with the same kind of thinking
that created it.
The collective process
of re-imagining the situation is where the most vital work is
currently happening. I see signs of a new understanding emerging in
countless different forms and these are unmistakably converging upon
a unified paradigm. Not just in the cutting edge thinkers but even so
called 'mainstream' or 'mass media' conditioned minds are manifesting
subtle but important shifts.
This process of global
transformation is not something that we can control or “make
happen” in a traditional sense, but we can nurture it and work with
it.
Background
information to ensure that we are “on the same page”...
Wisdom without
action is impotent, action without wisdom is destructive, wisdom in
action is Love.
The focus of ones
attention determines the content of ones experience, which
determines the ideas in the mind, which determines the focus of ones
attention and on and on in a constant feedback loop of
consciousness. Gradually this forms into a complex cognitive lens
through which the mind perceives and interprets things.
All of ones
thoughts, judgements, expectations and so on are cognitive
experiences that are structured by a certain subconscious
world-view. It is a dominant memeplex
that largely determines the structure of the cognitive lens.
At the core of the
world-view is a type of ontology
(a core set of beliefs about what entities exist and what relations
exist between those entities). This is the foundation of every idea
that forms within a mind. If an idea cannot be assimilated into the
ontology it is 'inconceivable' to that mind.
The subconscious
world-view filters and interprets all sensory and cognitive
experiences and forms these into a world-experience that the
conscious mind experiences and through naïve
realism assumes that it is directly experiencing an “objective,
external world”. The appearances of the world give no information
about the nature of the underlying reality (like in a virtual
reality where there is a world of objects in space created by
underlying information processes). This confusion between the actual
reality and the subjective experience of reality opens the way for
an endless drama of persistent illusions that are taken as being
objective facts.
This results in the
formation of a memeplex that identifies with the contents of
consciousness and believes that it is a being in a physical
universe. This memeplex refers to itself as 'I' and 'me' and is also
referred to as the ego. There is one of these ego that experiences
writing these words and quite likely another ego that experiences
reading them. But aside from this there is an underlying, ongoing
process of the real, of which these memplexes are oblivious, only
being able to comprehend the objects of cognition and sense
perception.
The vast majority
of mass culture is expressed entirely from the perspective of the
ego. Hence the discourse is on the level of matter, space, time,
people, places, things, events, ecosystems, governments, economies,
corporations and so on. That entire discourse can only comprehend
the world-experience of the ego and cannot comprehend the actual
reality of the situation.
Empiricism takes
the objects of sense perception and assumes that they are real
external objects and then forms a materialist science to reify this
(see The
Scientific Case Against Materialism). Hence empirical science is
inherently naïve realist and entrapped within a materialist
illusion, but quantum physics is gradually eroding that naïve
realism much to the angst of the scientific community. All the
empiricist egoic work done so far is still very useful as a
reflection of our cognitive experience of reality but it says almost
nothing about the actual reality. Post modern and other
philosophical insights are also having subtle but profound effects
throughout the collective discourse. The rapid evolution
of the Internet and ontology
engineering is self-organising into the core ontological
structure of a global consciousness that is gradually evolving
toward full sentience.
The entire naïve
realist, egoic world-view is what I refer to in the context of the
current paradigm shift as the “old paradigm”. Within that
paradigm things happen by people making them happen because the
world is just a complex mechanism within which the egoic beings are
the only 'doers'. Within the new paradigm the universe is a unified
and living whole in which there are no isolated egoic beings and
things happen as part of a global systemic process. It is not up to
us to make anything happen (our trying to control things is the
cause of the crisis), the situation is evolving whether we like it
or not and we can survive by participating within it and evolving
with it.
The idea of egoic
beings is a persistent, naïve realist, cognitive illusion that
causes us to come into conflict with reality time and time again.
The situation is more as the Buddha said: “events happen, deeds
are done, but there is no individual doer of any deed”*
and Daoism says that one who is connected with reality follows the
path of “non-action that leaves nothing undone”*
(wu-wei) or as Feynman
paths reveal in quantum physics, even the simplest of events is
not a localised phenomenon but is a function of the entire cosmic
process. I.e. in reality we do act but not from the ego, there is no
individual 'doer', it only seems that way through an egoic
(empiricist, materialist, individualist) cognitive lens that formed
within the mind due to naïve realism.
Where's the evidence?
It seems to me that
there are currently many people in the world exhibiting varying
degrees of despair due to a common misunderstanding about the nature
of paradigm shifts and the role of the activist within a paradigm
shift. There are many very well meaning and caring people who are
longing for a radical change but nevertheless they succumb to
despair, losing hope for any solution.
A common reason for this
is that unknowingly they are still looking at the situation from the
old paradigm, hence they cannot discern or recognise the emerging
paradigm. They look for 'evidence' in old paradigm ways and mainly
dredge up evidence of how bad things are getting.
But the issue of
'evidence' during a paradigm shift is not as simple as many people
assume. The situation is quite complex and subtle.
When people are looking
at things from different world-views this can make it difficult to
communicate about what they see let alone to see what the other sees.
But it is possible to communicate from the new paradigm to the old
one, so long as we remain clear with our communications, rational
(and logical) with our arguments and sceptical (open-minded) with our
beliefs.
I am not an expert
logician or communicator however this mind is quite open and
sceptical, and has a perspective on the paradigm shift. I will
endeavour to describe what I 'see' in the “mind's eye”.
When one speaks of
“evidence” or “facts” or “proof” one is speaking only
within the context of a particular paradigm. So anyone who reaches
conclusions or demands evidence should sincerely consider which
paradigm it is that they are operating within. A paradigm is a new
way of looking at ourselves and our experiences. It is a new way of
interpreting the same data but coming to a new understanding. The new
paradigm cannot be clearly discerned let alone understood in old
paradigm ways. It is possible that with a shift of understanding new
possibilities can open up.
"The
reception of a new paradigm often necessitates a redefinition of the
corresponding science. Some old problems may be relegated to another
science or declared entirely "unscientific". Others that
were previously non-existent or trivial may, with a new paradigm,
become the very archetypes of significant scientific achievement."*
(Thomas Kuhn)
It is a common
argumentative tactic to demand 'evidence', which seems totally
reasonable, but it is usually not stated in what paradigm the
criteria for 'evidence' is defined, hence this is a subtle and often
unconscious attempt to constrain the discourse to the implicit
paradigm. During a paradigm shift the very criteria for evidence can
shift. For example, behaviouralist psychology once demanded purely
materialist evidence for consciousness and could only come to the
logical conclusion that consciousness does not exist. But this was
such a weak position that it has even been countered by a joke: “Two
people finish making love and the man says, that was great for you
honey, how was it for me?”
Examples of naïve
realist demands are asking "what colour is an atom?", or
“what happened before the Big Bang?”. These cannot be answered in
any meaningful manner other than to explain why they cannot be
answered. If the person still doesn't understand they need to look
into it further and contemplate upon it, as well as ask questions.
Naïve realism is a very subtle and difficult concept to grasp
but it is vital to safe-guard ones clarity and sanity.
If the person still
disagrees with the explanation of why the question cannot be answered
then you should both discuss why one believes it doesn't relate to
the question and why one believes that it does. Of course, one could
answer a naïve realist question with a naïve realist answer
but that is risking a fools debate.
It should also be
discussed whether or not an understanding of naive realism is vitally
important to the issues of consciousness, "the world",
global transformation, the paradigm shift and all the objects,
people, places, ideas and events that allegedly comprise reality?
This would be a logical way to proceed. But the group should be open
to other suggestions on how to proceed?
The best evidence of the
paradigm shift is ones own shifting consciousness and then looking
out at a shifting view of reality. Many people are experiencing this
but pointing these people out would not be meaningful evidence to
others who are caught in the old paradigm. The whole idea of seeking
'evidence' is an old paradigm idea. Within the new paradigm such a
thing is meaningless because anything that one might point to "in
the world" is just an object of perception that naive realists
project into the idea of an external objective world. In the new
paradigm there is no "objective world" - every 'thing' is a
mode of universal consciousness that is experienced as a subjective
experience and then distorted by egoic false values and low
consciousness thereby resulting in the persistent illusion of an
external objective world.
There are many millions
of examples of people making the paradigm shift but they cannot be
recognised from an old paradigm perspective. It is only within a
naive realist paradigm that one can point to 'evidence' that will be
clear to all. In reality all one will experience of the 'evidence'
will be ones cognitive response to the symbolic form of the
'evidence' (e.g. a list of names) and ones cognitive responses to any
other information one might seek out regarding the evidence. But what
ever that means to you depends entirely upon what values structure
your mind and what level of consciousness you employ. See this
concept map of What
is a definition and how does it relate to meaning? If one wishes
to 'see' the evidence ones consciousness must first be able to
comprehend the evidence - that is why contemplating what naive
realism is can be very “eye opening”.
In a paradigm shift it
is important for everyone who finds themselves looking out on a bleak
and demoralising world to consider the possibility that they are
looking at things from the old paradigm and that is why they seem so
bleak. During a paradigm shift, if someone is looking for signs of
the old world getting better they will be very disappointed but if
they are looking for signs of the new world emerging then they would
be very excited.
Furthermore, if someone
is looking in old paradigm ways it is difficult to point to
'evidence' of the new paradigm that will be meaningful to their old
paradigm expectations other than to point at things that their
paradigm cannot yet comprehend. The way for them to really see the
evidence is to look through the new paradigm. Someone can point them
to the paradigm but if they don't look through it they wont see
anything truly new. The whole of my work is a pointer to the emerging
paradigm and there are pointers throughout that work to other signs
of the emerging paradigm in the world. www.anandavala.info
is a network of sign-posts all pointing to the same thing, a glimpse
of the emerging paradigm.
However there is
evidence around; there are well documented anomalies such as the PEAR
/ REG experiments that clearly prove, using the old paradigm's
methods, the existence of phenomena, which materialism is
fundamentally unable to comprehend and that are central to the
emerging paradigm. This is equivalent to the Photoelectric-effect
experiment that triggered the shift away from Newtonian classical
illusions, but this paradigm shift is far more profound and its
results will eventually be world changing as the ramifications are
experienced within individual minds and throughout the culture. This
will take time but will be part of a permanent systemic
transformation of civilisation.
For other leads to
follow see the links
page on my website.
Different signs of change are meaningful to different people and the
signs don't necessarily fit our expectations but there are many
subtle signs around. The signs are like tiny bubbles on the bottom of
a pot that signal a coming phase transition that will eventually have
the whole pot boiling.
Ego
and Authoritarianism
The human ego is like an
authoritarian regime within a population of cells. As we treat
ourselves that way we create a collective ego that comes to dominate
things in the same way we dominate ourselves. The new paradigm is
like a popular revolution both within each individual and throughout
the collective. If someone mainly looks at what the egos or regimes
are doing and saying amongst themselves they will not see the growing
momentum of the revolution which is happening 'within' each person
and 'within' the collective. E.g. If you ask the Whitehouse “how
are you doing?” you wont get an answer from the population but from
the regime and it is the same when speaking to human egos; you are
speaking to the regime not the oppressed population. For more on the
collective ego see The
Gaian-Ego Hypothesis.
The majority of cultural
communication (meme streams) such as television, movies, print media
and advertising are produced at such a mass-market level that it is
likely that it was largely influenced by the collective ego and would
then have the tendency to reinforce a subtly authoritarian, naïve
realist, egoic illusion and to misconstrue the situation. This also
has the tendency to demoralise individuals whose perspectives are
being denied. This leads to apathy and voices of doom that subtly
further the authoritarian agenda of the collective ego. Such is the
nature of most mass discourse; it is the discourse of the egoic
regime that is expressed from the regime's perspective. The egoic
regime is not located only in government or media or corporations and
so on just as a human ego is not located in any particular organ. But
the ego subtly controls the discourse to manipulate the situation to
maintain a culture of perceived threat in order to secure its
'mandate' of power, which it uses to pursue its own purposes.
It is important for
anyone engaged in progressive action to consider the possibility that
in their own personal situation their ego may be keeping them from
undergoing the paradigm shift that their higher self is reaching for.
Perhaps the ego is reinforcing the egoic story of “I am acting in
the world to campaign for change” (or something else) and this is
ostensibly to prevent them from overcoming naïve realism,
overcoming the ego and participating in the new paradigm. Consider
the case of America where there is a population oppressed by an egoic
regime that is on a campaign for “freedom and liberty” that keeps
it focused outward and not inward towards the suffering of the
people. How can we effectively participate in an egoic society to
eventually bring about peace and sanity? See Collective
Meditation to Counter the Collective Ego.
The ego is a subtle and
manipulative tyrant that dwells within us all so we need to be
watchful and honest with ourselves. It is the nature of naïve
realism and ego that it is ignorant of itself and it believes that
its beliefs are “just the way things are”. It is through
detachment from habitual ways of thinking and acting, and a process
of painfully honest self-reflection and clarification that one can
recover the unified vision and inspiration that we each experience
from time to time. It is by energising that vision that we manifest
it. Civilisation is a memeplex, it is a resonance of minds. For
civilisation to change, the resonance of minds must change and that
then percolates through into overt changes in the world.
A person may invest
heroic effort into things like campaigning, agitating, writing books
and so on. This is extremely valuable work but can be very draining
if one hopes to be sustained by the fruits of ones actions. These
efforts merge into the overall process in complex ways as history
shows. If one works for the good of the ongoing process of life and
does not expect to see ones expectations fulfilled then Great Work
can happen.
Cynicism is a Cancer within the Collective Discourse
Meaningful communication
cannot flow through a distorted channel. When this happens we need to
analyse the channel rather than get caught up in reacting to
misunderstandings. If we are to communicate effectively and manifest
sane self-organising collectives then we must be willing to do what
is required to have meaningful communication. The hallmark of
cynicism is to obscure and corrupt the discourse in order to preserve
a naïve realist, egoic belief system that is out of harmony with
reality.
It can often be the case
that, even when well meaning people are all trying to have a
meaningful conversation, it still seems to get bogged down in
misunderstanding and cynicism. People generally have unconscious,
unquestioned, naïve realist, egoic belief systems to which their
ego is very attached. The participants in the conversation are
usually not emotionally impartial towards each other; they either
like or dislike each other. This often leads to taking sides which is
a purely social political manoeuvre and is not conducive to clarity
or meaningful communication.
When this occurs the
participants, if they wish to converge toward a meaningful
conversation, need to step out of the content of the conversation and
step into a meta-conversation that is about the conversation. It is
useful for each participant to look over the factual content of the
entire conversation with a rational detached attitude and also
analyse the emotional content as well and consider how the confusion
of the two may be occurring here. For the sake of a meaningful
conversation, they must help each other work toward creating a
coherent communication channel through which a meaningful
conversation can happen. If people want a genuinely meaningful
conversation they will all have to agree to take part in such a
manner that it will not rapidly devolve into confusion.
Often when a person's
core ideas are questioned they will feel as if it is they who is
being attacked. This is the response of the ego, who's main function
is as a defence system that arises in times of perceived threat, and
which naturally subsides in times of peace. The ego often seeks ways
to subtly manipulate circumstances to maintain an artificial
perception of threat so as to reinforce its reason for existing. In
order for non-egoic communication to occur it is essential that the
participants know that they are only discussing ideas and not
attacking each other using ideas.
Even when you or someone
else is very knowledgeable on a subject there are many ways of
knowing and not all of these are intelligible to each other. For
instance, one can study entheogenic pharmacology or undertake
shamanic vision quests and each will give a very different
perspective on the same underlying subject area. These differences
should ideally be recognised, respected and turned into a creative
tension rather than a conflict of opinion. A deeper level of
knowledge is 'experience', which results in wisdom. This is knowledge
that has been applied, tested and lived, thereby subtly transforming
the subconscious ontology and cognitive processes to provide for a
spontaneous response that is in harmony with ones inner knowing.
It is useful to know a
great deal but we must also apply these understandings to ourselves
in the context of our own lives. Right now in your current situation
– are you truly living and thinking to the best of your
understanding or are there things you realise but you mainly seem to
act from a different understanding; a conditioned response? If we
identify these conditioned responses and 'illuminate' them with
penetrative insight based upon our best understanding, we would then
be moving in the right direction to be able to discern the actual
meanings that are being conveyed by others without getting bogged
down in misunderstandings and conflict.
One should avoid being
drawn into cynical “fools debates”, this can be achieved by being
thorough, rational and clear. If we seek to have meaningful
conversations we must all put in enough effort to make ourselves
clear and to try and understand the logical point that the other is
making. Also, read some books or articles on the art of argument,
logic and the difference between straight and crooked thinking.
When faced with cynical
tactics just remain calm and act appropriately in the moment to the
best of your understanding. A cynics position is fundamentally weak -
all one needs to do is stay rational and not get caught up in their
emotive tricks and they soon show everyone their true colours and
then that itself can be calmly analysed in the meta-conversation.
Their only option is to engage in the logical debate or to run and
hide - but they can't win.
Once the situation is
clarified and calms down the participants can then continue to engage
in a rational meaningful conversation. It is the egos that get in the
way, generally people have very intelligent minds but they are
suffering the oppression of an ego that is using that mind to
maintain its own entrenched position. An ego conflict is no cause for
the situation to devolve into real conflict, we just need to
recognise the interference of the ego and look beyond it to what is
factually being said, beyond the emotional manipulations of the ego.
We must clearly remember
that a cynic is just a naïve realist egoic memeplex that does
not know what it really is, or where it really is, or what is really
happening, or even what is truly possible in a situation. It is a
mind that is confused and oppressed by an ego that keeps it fearful
and defensive. They are not to be treated as “just a cynic” or
that would be a naïve realist labelling of that person based
upon other people's egoic discomfort or aversion. This only adds to
the conflict and alienates many people who could otherwise have
meaningfully participated if only a way could be found to get through
to them.
There are of course many
“hard-cases” and even Jesus (whether historical or metaphorical)
did not know how to deal with people such as these and advised the
wise to not “cast pearls before swine”. But all things change and
they did not have the sophisticated conceptual frameworks that we now
have. We can discuss things in detail in a logical rational manner
even in the midst of disagreement. A cynical ego is analogous to the
case of America and the friendly-fascist regime that is currently
oppressing it. There are many open minds within America but the
regime's 'mind' (communications, media, bureaucracy, etc) is
primarily fixated on its egoic story of fear and authoritarianism. I
really believe that we can find some rational way to get through the
egoic delusion and bring some sanity back into these situations
without resorting to egoic methods such as alienation or aggression.
The ultimate aim must be to liberate the organism from the oppression
of the ego and to liberate the population from the oppression of the
regime.
Without honesty and
especially self-honesty it is difficult to grow and anchor oneself to
reality. This is because even when profound realisations come near
they are either ignored or denied. A mind that is trapped in cynical
denial will only regress.
Many people feel
themselves to be quite logical and well appraised of the facts, but
many retain a naïve realist understanding of what a fact really
is. It is not something that is obviously true or false, but rather
an assumption or proposition that is defined within the context of a
particular paradigm. A paradigm shift may shift many so called
'facts' so all of these need to be questioned. If one applies logic
to facts in a naïve realist manner then this often results in
arrogance, cynicism, cruelty and oppression. Also look into the
concept of le
differand. for a postmodern philosophical perspective.
Only if one has a non
naïve realist understanding of facts can one use logic to
determine if ones long held views are in fact correct. Otherwise it
will only result in the apparent validation of ones naïve
realist views. For example, this was the case historically with
scientists trying to understand 'matter' as a solid substance whilst
this is just a naïve realist belief, but for centuries they
operated on false 'facts' so their logic only validated their naïve
realist assumptions. And they remained with a closed loop made from
their unquestioned assumptions that were implied as 'facts'.
If we are to be
skeptical then we must all be watchful of the possibility that we may
inadvertently only be paying lip service to the cause of evolving
consciousness. If we really care about putting out the naïve
realist / egoic bonfire on the planet then we should avoid adding
more fuel to the fire by trying to put it out in a naïve realist
/ egoic manner. Just as authoritarian regimes try to fix problems
caused by authoritarianism using authoritarian methods (to extend
their control ever deeper into society), so too the ego tries to fix
problems caused by the ego using egoic methods (to extend its control
ever deeper into the mind). If we genuinely care about liberating
ourselves from this oppression then we should see to it that we act
in a genuinely effective manner even if that requires a painful
reassessment (only painful to the ego and the regime but it is more
like a deep tissue massage once they surrender to it).
To have a 'realistic'
hope of liberation we need to ask ourselves which 'reality' are we
currently operating within? Is it the one that is the source of our
sensory data and which is accessible to the mind via inference OR the
one that appears to the conscious mind as a world but is actually a
product of the subconscious mind based upon a very personal
interpretation of the sensory data. A realist seeks to ground
themselves in the former whilst a naïve realist is grounded in
the latter and largely unaware of the former – hence each will have
different concepts of what solutions are required by a situation.
We must also deeply
contemplate the root causes of our distress. There we find naïve
realism, which is a 'low' state of consciousness that is the root
cause of the many crises in our lives and through the world. If we
contemplate deeply our own situation and that of the planet in
parallel, we can see many important homologies (meaningful
similarities that hint at a deep order) that can help us understand a
great deal more about the situation. That which we call 'I' and 'me'
is an ego dominating the organism and that which society calls “John
Ringland” is a person (collective cell) within an organisation
(collective organism) that is dominated by a subtle but all pervasive
authoritarian regime (collective ego). The destruction and suffering
that we see around us due to the collective ego is also happening
within each of us due to the individual ego. The primary cause of the
growth of this oppression within ourselves and throughout society is
naïve realism.
If we wish to
participate in the emerging paradigm then we are forced to deal with
reality on its’ own terms and not through merely as it is reflected
in a distorted naïve realist egoic mirror. Rather than focus on
the perceived problems and fuel the propaganda of fear the
strengthens the old paradigm, instead focus on clarifying your mind
and re-imagining the situation from a deeper and more holistic
understanding. By undertaking the paradigm shift the whole of what we
think to be real can change and new and previously inconceivable
solutions can be found.
Some analyses of the
human condition also focus on the issue of the ego and many do so
very accurately, but when an ego focuses on the ego, this can lead
the ego to believe that it is the higher self whereon it will act out
an egoic story of overcoming the ego but this will only strengthen
the ego. This is why it is important to comprehend the role of naïve
realism in the formation and maintenance of the ego. Naïve
realism is the root of the ego and the ego is the root of conflict.
If this VITAL concept is
fundamentally missing from ones understanding this can cause a deep
seated confusion that results in suffering and a cycle of destructive
egoic behaviour. When we witness each other engaging in such
behaviour we should not join in by being egoic in return, either as
anger, revenge, etc. We should say something but have no attachment
to any outcome.
Misunderstandings are
highly disruptive to the flow of meaning people are very put-off by
cynicism so these two things can make a conversation futile and
transient. If a conversation is going to go anywhere people need to
focus on clarifying the communication channel. For the sake of
clarity they could each explain their understanding of the flow of
the conversation so far in order to resolve any confusions before
they get too out of hand. The descriptions should be contemplated in
a rational, skeptical (open-minded) manner.
Many cynics can be have
emotional attachment to the naïve realist idea of obvious hard
evidence. Any person who deals with genuine logical argument leading
up to evidence will understand that there is no such thing as obvious
hard evidence for anything but the most trivial things, especially
during a paradigm shift. This demand for 'evidence' is often used as
a tactic for confining the discourse to entirely naïve realist
terms and then demanding that everyone focus only on the content of
the discussion whilst the entire discourse is distorted from the
start and manipulated along the way. This is a common weapon of egos
and authoritarian regimes to stifle any meaningful discussion. Any
attempt to step into a meta-conversation and address the distorted
discourse will be met with cynicism and increasingly strident demands
to keep to the topic (I.e. keep within the naïve realist
paradigm).
This is just one
example, but there are many signs of a habitual cynical attitude that
is destructive to the process of a meaningful conversation.
Materialist cynics have used this tactic to deny the existence of
consciousness before, and regimes and egos habitually use this
tactic.
Please
read this article on self-help cynics. It is an informative
insight into cynics and their self-development. If a person is able
to recognise and overcome their cynicism then that is a ripe
opportunity to learn something very valuable through direct personal
experience about the nature of mind, ego, self-deception, oppression
and ultimately liberation. Naturally if humans were truly rational we
would respond to such opportunities with sceptical enthusiasm (a keen
open mind) but when the ego dominates there is a cynical
(close-minded) response that attempts to avoid the issues that are
raised in order to protect its web of lies and deceptions.
A quote to contemplate
in this context:
"If we truely
desire to understand the world, then we are forced to fight
constantly for clear vision. We must fight constantly against our
expectation bias, against our human tendency to see only what we want
to see. Researchers who assume it's easy to avoid self-delusions and
wishful thinking... are probably the victims of self-delusions and
wishful thinking. It takes quite a bit of effort to avoid these
pitfalls. The effort starts with a painfully honest self-examination,
wherein we discover just how large our personal capacity for
self-delusion can be."*
We all succumb to naïve
realism and egotism from time to time and a true friend or comrade
will remain clear and truthful even when the other perceives this as
an attack. One must remain calm, detached, compassionate and
rational. This can provide support for the organism and mind that
might otherwise be reinforced if people responded negatively from
their own egos. When egos respond to egos they resonate and both can
get entangled within a delusional discourse.
It is imperative for
meaningful progressive communication that the participants cooperate
to help clarify the conversation and keep it focused on realistically
and effectively understanding things and developing solutions to the
actual problems that we face.
Consider this... If a
person living in America naively trusted the Bush administration and
the corporate media and so on then they would be horribly confused
and frightened by the situation and they would be conditioned to
cling to a belief in the 'facts' as presented by the regime, would
they not? So too if a person naively trusts their ego! Naïve
realism directly results in a naïve trust in the ego because one
cannot clearly distinguish the ego from the mind or organism. Also,
when one's ego reacts strongly against ideas we need to realise that
this is the same as the reaction of a fascist regime to subversive
material. The ego/regime attacks many ideas because these ideas can
potentially liberate the organism/population from the tyranny of the
ego/regime. If we are to have any hope of liberating the world then
we must first liberate ourselves, otherwise we are unwittingly an
egoic regime acting destructively upon ourselves and upon the process
of evolution.
Beyond
Activism and into Beingism
Although agitators and
communicators and so on are necessary and serve a vital role,
ultimately the new paradigm grows as people become the change they
want to see in the world and this is a very subtle and personal
shift. As we undergo the paradigm shift we begin to see a new world.
The more people that see that world, that see each other in that
world and that build lives within that world the more that new
paradigm is manifested. Hence the signs of change in the world at
large aren't always what one would expect. It takes time for the
shift to manifest in outward action, but even then such changes would
seem incomprehensible or trivial from the old paradigm but they are
in fact a wave of change that is sweeping through a complex dynamical
system that is undergoing a meta-system-transition
(a systemic phase transition from a collection of individuals to an
individual whole).
From an old paradigm
perspective it is up to humanity to deal with the situation on its
own, but from the new paradigm perspective humanity is just one
participant in a symbiotic process that also involves ecosystems of
memes and organisations as well as the 'natural' ecosystem. The
process is not “about humans”, we just happen to have a human
perspective on the process.
So when I say that there
are great things happening in the world I am not saying that the view
from the old window is meaningfully changing but that the windows
that people are looking through are starting to shift in a meaningful
way. This proceeds like a change in the seasons – it is subtle but
systemic. It is partly driven by the activity of humanity, partly by
the evolution of a global consciousness, and also by numerous other
forces. We can participate and nurture the process but the whole idea
of “making things happen” is an old paradigm idea and only works
for old paradigm adventures, which are what caused the disharmony to
begin with.
In light of the
preceding ideas it might be useful for us all to consider the extent
to which we are operating through the paradigm of being an egoic
being in a mechanistic universe. I find that if I look at the world
as a complex dynamical system that is undergoing a
meta-system-transition, first from cells to organisms and now from
organisms to organisations, this helps to develop a deeper
understanding of what is happening and how to respond effectively.
One can also look at existence as a field of consciousness in which
we participate via focused awareness. Or there are many other
analogies that have the same underlying understanding which is in
good accord with reality, such as virtual realism or scientific
realism or mystic realism.
There is indeed much
turmoil at the moment but a very clear process of evolution is
occurring. These last three billions years of organic evolution have
been turbulent at times, especially during the transition phases, but
it is a coherent process and although things seem insane from an
egoic perspective they are not as insane as they seem. If we
understand things clearly we can better navigate the process and
ensure our long term sanity and survival.
In 2005 when I first
published my website I asked for a message from the I Ching to help
reassure people about the overall situation that we humans are in.
This is the
reply. I would recommend contemplating this DEEPLY.
For more thoughts on the
new paradigm see: What
is a system and why should we care to know? and Core
terms for the Information System Paradigm.
A final piece of advice
in all of this, take your time to think about things, there is
generally no need to rush.
Best wishes,
John
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
| 