New Civilization News: Thoughts on Navigating the Paradigm Shift    
 Thoughts on Navigating the Paradigm Shift
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

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”...

  1. Wisdom without action is impotent, action without wisdom is destructive, wisdom in action is Love.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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. 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,


Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

[< Back] [New Civilization News]


Other entries in
8 Jul 2010 @ 02:27: Truth: superconductivity for scalable networks
11 Mar 2010 @ 17:55: The CascoDuro Case and who laughs last..
19 May 2008 @ 14:49: Mind Enslavement
15 May 2008 @ 06:22: 1001 Dialogues - 100 001 Actions for Dialogues and Unity in Diversity
20 Apr 2008 @ 10:57: How we unconsciously resist becoming enlightened, and what to do about it!
8 Apr 2008 @ 06:31: An open Dialogue on the Nature of Reality.
22 Feb 2008 @ 16:36: Blogging or Logging
9 Jan 2008 @ 22:45: A Communication Model
26 Oct 2007 @ 08:09: Humanities new “Canon” ?? - a new German Bildungskanon ??
10 Sep 2007 @ 02:45: Memebusting: Pronoia, Epinoia, Paranoia, Morphonoia

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?