The Metacrisis and Personal Transformation (3): A Systems-Thinking Approach Based on 'Four-Factor Deep-Reality'
Systems thinking's claim-to-fame is 'addressing the whole'. But do current approaches to inter-linked global crises address a big-enough, deep-enough whole?!
Building on two previous articles [i],[ii], here I offer a first-pass sketch of a new systems-thinking approach to the metacrisis, and how to respond to it. What strongly differentiates the approach here from others is its adoption of a ‘Four-Factor Deep-Reality’ fundamental-model (‘4F-DR’). This reality-view (sketched in [ii]) facilitates a more concrete understanding of ‘out of time’ metacrisis-causation (proposed in [i]). (For some quick introductions to the vast field of ‘systems thinking’, please see [iii].) One major benefit of extending [i]-and[ii] into a systemic-model is that we can use it to assess the practical value of out-of-time/4F-DR hypotheses.
Figure 1. Systems-Thinking Cartoon of Metacrisis and Response, Based on 4F-DR [ii]. As complicated as this Figure is, the model depicted is only a first-pass sketch. The detail in this Figure is developed stage-by-stage in Figures 2 through 6. As a Big-Picture overview: the diagonal dashed-blue line demarcates two major sub-aspects of the model: below and to the left of the diagonal, dynamics involved in metacrisis-causation; above and to the right, components of a potential metacrisis-response. Note that the three above-diagonal purple-ovals are interlinked by mutually-reinforcing arrows (green text), as are the nine black-ovals below. Thus, causation and response sub-networks are both internally-reinforcing. However, the main links between them are (red text) ‘decreasing’ effects of response on causation. (This is not the only linkage, however. Notably, the causation sub-network also ‘decreases’ response. And ‘Fear’ can explode, and leak energy, into a suitable container for non-conventional experience.)
1. Overview: The Model and the Article
Figure 1 depicts a first-pass sketch of a systems-thinking approach to the metacrisis. There’s a lot going on in this picture! Fear not, though – Figures 2 through 6 develop Figure 1 in a step-wise way. So you’re not asked to unpack all of Figure 1’s complications, just at first glance.
I suggest reviewing Fig. 1 first for its overall structure. (E.g., note the contrast between metacrisis-causation elements, below and to the left of the blue-dashed diagonal, and metacrisis-response elements, above and to the right.) Next, you could read sections 2 through 4, and review the accompanying Figs. 2 through 6. (Again, Figs. 2 to 6 explain parts of Fig. 1 in greater detail.) If you wish, you could then return to Fig. 1, to see how its parts combine into a whole.
In section 5, I distil some simple messages about the metacrisis, suggested by the model. These messages aren’t meant to be a comprehensive or detailed analysis of the metacrisis and how to respond to it. Instead, they’re offered more as ‘proof-of-principle’ for the usefulness of this kind of approach. (Section 5 also includes some basic observations about the model-so-far.)
One major use of this particular model is in its structural identification and analysis of a novel mode for metacrisis-response. The ideal, empowered form of this response is discussed in section 4 (and illustrated in Figs. 4 to 6). This very identification-and-discussion, however, reveals we don’t yet have the ‘ideal, empowered’ response. Nor, to my knowledge, is anyone yet working in the direction of that ideal. (Although some sub-components do exist, they haven’t been connected up. Other components are missing. And the transformational power of the whole is currently unrecognized and unrealized. Figure 7 depicts these points.) In section 6, I point towards steps that are required for humankind to actually put a complete response-complex into motion.
Sections 7 through 9 wrap up the article.
Section 7 offers some bigger-picture implications from the approach taken here. For example, we can see metacrisis as a constructive demand for a fuller appreciation of humankind’s abilities and existence, in edge-of-time/out-of-time domains. And we can discover how certain kinds of transformational practices can be deep and meaningful forms of personal metacrisis-response, even if the rest of humanity chooses not to act (e.g. to not engage in section 4’s collective response-complex).
Section 8 is a summary. Section 9 previews immediately-forthcoming attractions, in the form of further articles exploring the relationship between metacrisis and personal transformation.
Figure 2. Six Steps to Metacrisis. As described in the accompanying text: Step-1 is the animation of a belief that overall goodness can be improved by Individuations [ii] taking on the Identity of the Ground; this leads to an imagined departure from real-Reality (Step-2); Step-3 is a further choice, to interpret this departure e.g. in terms of punishment of the guilty; this drives the further densification-of-the-imagination, into Step-4’s matter-based pseudo-reality (e.g. the Big Bang and the birth of our local Universe); much, much later, in Step-5 humankind actively and consciously intensifies the pervasive belief that the pseudo-reality is Total-Reality [iv]; finally, and even more recently, the previous steps all condense into the metacrisis (Step-6).
2. Six Steps to Metacrisis: The 4F-DR View
To kick off the novel systems-thinking approach offered here, I expand the generic ‘out of time’ metacrisis-causation suggested in [i], by relating it to specific elements of the 4F-DR hypothesis set out in [ii]. Importantly, systemic approaches often claim superior comprehensiveness by addressing ‘the whole system’. In the case of the metacrisis, I suggest that the relevant whole – at least for a complete understanding [v] – is Totality itself, including the Ground [ii].
In the following abbreviated account of metacrisis-origins, ‘S1’ to ‘S6’ correspond to Steps 1-to-6 in Fig. 2:
S1. The originating step occurs when an Individuation or group-of-Individuations [ii] experiments with the belief that it would be good to take on the identity of the Ground. That is, they each begin to assert, with the causal powers of Deep Reality, ‘I am the fundamental level’.
S2. Structural features of Deep Reality are unalterable, however. The insistence by one feature that it ‘Is’ another feature leads to self-exile from Deep Reality. (For those who are open to the ‘Simulation Hypothesis’: this is where a set of virtual-reality movies begin, one for each Individuation. Alternatively, in the Dream/Awakening metaphor used by some non-dual spiritualities: this is where Individuations ‘fall Asleep’ – and then Dream of sleeping, dreaming, and waking, within that Sleep. Whatever the metaphor, note that total departure from real-Reality can only be imagined. Analogously, in humankind’s current-consensus reality-interpretation, a human sleeper who dreams hellish nightmares is actually safe in bed, and hasn’t fundamentally ‘left Earth’.)
S3. Next, Step-2’s self-generated departure from real-Reality can be interpreted through a lens of guilt and punishment. (Although it need not be! Steps-1 and 3 are free choices; Step-2 is just the natural-order consequence of Step-1: it’s not a punishment.) If Step-1 is taken to be a punishment of the guilty, the Dream-separation can further intensify into Step-4.
S4. Here, energetic/emotional consequences of the Dream-of-punishment are repackaged into the matter-dynamics of a Universe, which can itself be interpreted as a complete, self-contained, and separate ‘reality’. The imagination-of-separation launched by Step-1 gets deeper and darker [vi].
S5. Billions of years after the Step-4 matter-based Universe begins, humans evolve. Because they have the capacity for conscious thought, they can (and do!) actively intensify the belief that pseudo-reality (the matter-Universe) is the same thing as Total-Reality. This corresponds to yet another intensification of the separation-Dream.
S6. Eventually, humans reach a scale on the planet at which the toxic side-effects of Steps-1-through-5 can no longer be externalized. Seeing this, they seek to use things like systems-thinking to try to engineer ‘whole planet’ solutions. But the largest relevant ‘whole’ is not the planet, but the Totality (including 4F-DR). Failing to meet this level, a ‘metacrisis’/omnicrisis/permacrisis persists, in which some allegedly-mysterious factor underpins a collection of interconnected crises in interconnected systems (ecological, socioeconomic, psychological, technological, etc.)
Figure 3. Three Factors that Deepen Metacrisis. This Figure adds three salient factors to the metacrisis-formation dynamic shown in Fig. 2. (I) In Step-7, Step-3’s guilt can promote denial that the 4F-DR Ground [ii] even exists. (This happens when guilt about alleged-exile from real-Reality becomes too big to even look at. Then, denial of Ground-existence helps keep guilt outside conscious awareness.) (II) In Step-8, fear of the metacrisis can intensify Step-5’s dis-Belief in Reality, because fear is a lack of Love, or the imagined separation from real-Reality. (III) In Step-9, exponential growth in the demonstrated efficacy of matter-based technology (e.g. AI and synthetic biology) can intensify Step 5’s belief in pseudo-reality/Total-Reality equivalence. As described in the text, Steps-7 and 8 also participate in positive-feedback loops (7-to-5-to-3-to-7, and 8-to-5-to-6-to-8, respectively). These loops both continually strengthen Step-5, the metacrisis-pivotal belief in pseudo-reality/Total-Reality identity.
3. Deepening the Metacrisis: Three Crucial Factors
In principle, the dynamics depicted in Fig. 2 could be undone simply by reversing the free choices at Step-1 and Step-3. However, Step-4’s matter-Universe obscures the existence of the out-of-time domain in which Steps-1 and 3 occur. And a firmly-held Step-5 belief that there isn’t anything outside our local pseudo-reality (i.e. outside our Universe) implies there’s no point in looking for ‘out-of-time’. Unfortunately, things are even worse than Fig. 2 suggests, because of three additional factors that dramatically deepen the metacrisis. These are described in what follows as ‘S7’ to ‘S9’, and depicted in Figure 3 as Steps 7-through-9.
S7. Step-3’s guilt can take the form of imagining that the Ground is the punitive originator of Step-2’s departure from real-Reality. When this guilt gets too large to look at, it can be pushed out-of-mind by denying that the Ground even exists. This denial is Step-7. Its primary direct action is to support Step-5, the belief that there’s no Reality beyond pseudo-reality (i.e. beyond our local Universe). It does this by denying the existence of the deepest level of that ‘Beyond’. Step-7 has an important secondary action, participating in the creation of a feedback loop (‘Loop-1’ below), which strengthens all its members, notably Step-5’s metacrisis-pivotal belief.
S8. Step-8 is the fear that Step-6’s metacrisis can engender. Again the primary direct action is to support Step-5’s ‘local-reality = Total-Reality’ belief. Step-8’s fear intensifies Step-5 because the texture of real-Reality is Love, and fear – in one view – is the absence of Love. Thus, Step-8 fear pushes real-Reality further away, strengthening Step-5’s view that there isn’t a ‘real’ Reality beyond our local Universe. Step-8 also has a secondary feedback-loop action (‘Loop-2’ below), again providing yet more support for Step-5.
S9. Finally, the most-recent, most-modern step is the way in which the efficacy of matter-made technology can support the belief that the matter-energy described by science effectively makes up all of reality. The efficacy of technology needn’t necessarily support Step-5’s ‘local, matter-made, reality is All-of-Reality’. In current practice, though, it does – powerfully! The most recent, arguably most-powerful instances here are AI and synthetic biology, which can be taken to show that both consciousness and life are properties of matter alone. (Although they shouldn’t be!)
Loop-1: S7→S5→S3→S7. As explained above, Step-7’s Ground-denial intensifies Step-5’s reality-beliefs. In turn, Step-5’s conscious belief that there’s no Reality-beyond-local-reality intensifies Step-3’s guilt. This happens in the unconscious, which can’t actually leave real-Reality, but feels pushed further from it, by Step-5’s belief. Again as explained above, intensification of Step-3’s guilt can further activate Step-7’s Ground-denial. Thus, we get S7→S5→S3→S7 … and around, and around!
Loop-2: S8→S5→S6→S8. As explained above, Step-8’s fear intensifies Step-5’s reality-beliefs. In turn, Step-5 acts reasonably-directly to intensify Step-6’s metacrisis, because this complex can be traced to a misunderstanding of Reality, and to its apparent loss. And intensification of the Step-6 metacrisis directly intensifies Step-8 fear. Thus, we get S8→S5→S6→S8→ …
Note that metacrisis-pivotal Step-5 is a member of both Loops, thus providing a mechanism by which each Loop can accelerate the other.
Figure 4. A Three-Component Metacrisis Counter-Dynamic. Three mutually-supportive components can enact a stable and powerful counter to the metacrisis-dynamics depicted in Fig. 3. See text for further explanation of individual components (C1 to C3, in the text). Figure 5 illustrates the generic action of this overall complex on a central nexus of metacrisis-dynamics. Figure 6 depicts the specific action-targets of each component.
4. A New Hope: A Three-Part Metacrisis Counter-Dynamic
Fig. 3 paints a very distressing picture. Although the reversal of originating choices (S1 and S3) could unwind the whole thing, very few are even conceptually open to the existence of these choices [vii]. Fewer still are able to connect with those choices, and work directly on undoing them. One reason for these difficulties is the existence of feedback loops that powerfully act against the kind of exploration required (Fig. 3).
However, all is not lost. I should mention that every Figure in this article should show the fourth factor in 4F-DR, what I call the ‘ARC’ [viii], pervasively present in and around every metacrisis dynamic. The ARC is the potential for radical-undoing of choices and dynamics perpetuating the metacrisis. But this potential must be activated. How is this to be done?
In Figure 4, I show a three-component metacrisis counter-dynamic, whose overall effect is to activate and stabilize the action of the ARC in humankind. ‘C1’ to ‘C3’ in the following abbreviated explanations of these three components, correspond to Components 1-to-3 in Fig. 4.
C1. Specific kinds of frameworks, practices, and communities can ground, support and contextualize certain non-conventional (‘spiritual’) experiences and activities that counteract the metacrisis. Not every framework, practice, or community can effectively fill this role, however [ix]. Section 6 discusses some of the demands that effective metacrisis-response places on C1. One particular issue is the tension between modern science and almost every spiritual framework. One function of C2 and C3 is to provide support to C1, against the unnecessarily-repressive tendencies of mainstream scientific viewpoints.
C2. One kind of support for C1 is scientific analysis supporting out-of-mainstream-paradigm results, which don’t in turn have a detailed theoretical basis to back them up [x]. (For example, various kinds of anomalies that conflict with mainstream science, but aren’t yet diverse or specific enough to generate concrete revisions to the mainstream theory-base.) A major use for this kind of out-of-paradigm data that’s disconnected from the mainstream theory-base is to help support minds in C1-experiences, against the onslaught of denial by the mainstream. However, this use is less effective for minds that are already strongly connected to mainstream science.
C3. A different kind of scientific contribution to the counter-dynamic comes from out-of-paradigm experimental data that can be directly connected to the mainstream’s theory-base. The primary example here is a collection of theorems and proposed experiments concerning the scientific understanding of conscious experience (for example, the shapes and colors you’re experiencing when reading this article) [xi]. This complements C2’s support of C1-engaged minds, specifically offering refuge to minds that are strongly-connected to mainstream scientific data-and-explanations (especially modern theoretical physics).
Loops: C1→C2→C3/C3→C2→C1. As Fig. 4 depicts, pairwise-support between components C1/C2/C3 leads to bi-directional positive-feedback loops. Given Fig. 3’s powerful metacrisis forces, mutual-reinforcement inside the counter-dynamic is absolutely crucial. Importantly, though, this kind of reinforcement can only occur if the individual components are precisely aligned-and-coherent. (And we don’t have anything like that, yet. See section 6.)
Fig. 4 depicts the components of the counter-dynamic, and their mutual interactions. Figure 5 illustrates the generic interaction between the complex-as-a-whole and core metacrisis-dynamics. Figure 6 shows the specific targets of each of the three complex-components. (See also Fig. 1 for the detailed, full-context, relationship between the counter-dynamic, towards the top left, and the metacrisis, towards the lower-right.)
This extremely-brief account of the counter-dynamic could be heard as ‘what’s needed is some vague complex of science and spirituality’. To the contrary, the point is we need a specific, precisely-interfaced complex of scientific and spiritual theory and experiment/practice. And, this complex doesn’t preclude or replace apparently more-direct responses to metacrisis sub-themes, such as ecological and socioeconomic crises. To the contrary again, we should expect both explicit and unseen connections between the complex outlined here (Fig. 4) and such responses – although this is not the place to go into those linkages [xii].
Figure 5. The Counter-Dynamic Complex vs. a Metacrisis-Pivotal Belief. The general action of Fig. 4’s counter-dynamic is to undo or empty various components of Fig. 3’s metacrisis-structure. (Fig. 6 shows detailed modes of this action. This Figure illustrates mutual interplay between the counter-dynamic, and the metacrisis-pivotal belief that local-reality (our Universe) is identical with Total-Reality (Step-5 in Figs. 2 and 3). The counter-dynamic complex challenges the belief, and the belief represses interest and investment in the complex. Perhaps importantly, a potential symmetry in this mutual challenge/repression can be broken by a channel that allows the energy of fear-born explosions to land in Component-1 of the complex. However, functionality of this channel makes very specific demands on certain structural characteristics of a psychospiritual-psychotherapy sub-component of C1 (section 6).
Figure 6. Specific Metacrisis-Targets of Specific Counter-Dynamic Components. The three components of the counter-dynamic shown in Fig. 4 each act on specific features of Fig. 3’s metacrisis-complex. Panels A, B and C of this Figure depict those targets, for the spiritual-experience component (C1), the paradigm-distant scientific component (C2), and the paradigm-connectable scientific component (C3), respectively.
5. Messages From (and About!) a Cartoon Model
1. The initiating steps of the metacrisis (Fig. 2) are freely chosen by each of us. As long as we keep making these choices, it’s not true to say ‘we’re creating a metacrisis that no-one wants’.
2. Two positively-reinforcing loops take over from initial choices (Fig. 3), burying the levels of identity that are making those choices! At this point, our situation looks hopeless. Notably, very few people can even acknowledge that they could be participating in originating choices [vii].
3. Growing demonstrations of the power of science-based technology intensify belief that local matter-energy reality (‘our Universe’) is the totality of Reality (Fig. 3). AscI (‘Artificial so-called Intelligence’) is perhaps the most dangerous example. The hopeless-hole gets even deeper.
4. But things aren’t hopeless. We can create and energize a mutually-reinforcing trinity of spiritual and scientific initiatives (Fig. 4), with the power to unwind the metacrisis death-spiral.
(However, as things stand, we haven’t even built all the component-pieces of this trinity. Even more urgently, there’s major work to do to link up components, and have them work together synergistically, as a single complex. The next section sketches steps required for ‘Launching the Counter-Dynamic’, for both the complex-as-a-whole, and its component parts.)
5. One primary tug-of-war will be around the belief that local-reality ‘is’ the Totality. This belief represses the action of the counter-dynamic trinity; conversely, the trinity acts to empty the belief (Fig. 5). Given tremendous forces supporting the belief, the trinity will have to work flawlessly: we are nowhere near even basic function. (In contrast, many of Fig. 3’s metacrisis-dynamics have been fully active for billions of years, others for many thousands!)
6. The three delineated components of the counter-dynamic each have well-defined targets in metacrisis dynamics (A/B/C below correspond to panels A/B/C in Fig. 6):
A. The deepest action of the counter-trinity derives from ‘spiritual’ experience and practice, appropriately contextualized (Fig. 6A) [ix]. This can lead to unwinding of the originating choices, as well as emptying the terrible twins: denial of Ground-existence, and belief that ‘local-reality is Totality’. Perhaps crucially, specific frames for non-typical experience can be landing points for fear/anger-driven ‘explosions’, thus draining energy from the fundamental metacrisis-loop (linking metacrisis, fear, and the ‘local = Total’ belief).
B. Out-of-paradigm scientific data that’s far from the mainstream paradigm (e.g. so-called ‘psi’ [x]) can challenge Ground-denial (depending on contextualizing narrative). It will challenge ‘local-reality = Totality’ (Fig. 6B).
C. Out-of-paradigm scientific data (of specific kinds [xi]) that can be connected to the mainstream, directly challenges both the ‘local = Total’ belief, and the claims of technology to be demonstrations of that belief (Fig. 6C).
7. This model is a crude initial sketch (Figs. 1 to 6), intended as a proof-of-principle for the 4F-DR approach to metacrisis. It needs major review, refinement, and field-testing.
8. One mistake that the counter-dynamic movement has made concerning the pivotal ‘local = Total’ point is to try ‘to argue with it’, intellectually [xiii]. The kinds of model illustrated here aren’t meant to ‘change minds’, e.g. to argue with those deeply involved in metacrisis-reinforcing loops. Instead, their hypothetical utility is for those who are already friendly to one-or-more components of the counter-movement, or who are looking for a new context to guide their metacrisis-response. (Or personal transformation!) For these people, this model-class can help suggest and coordinate action in cognitive, emotional, energetic, financial, and behavioral/relational domains.
Figure 7. Missing Power, in the Current ‘One-and-a-Bit’ Member Counter-Dynamic. Figs. 4, 5, and 6 depict the potential, ideal, form of a counter-dynamic to the metacrisis. As shown here, the current form of the counter-dynamic is far from this ideal. Its ‘spiritual’ component (C1) is typically based on Advaita, Buddhism, or Gaia (and so lacking the 4F-DR’s ‘Ground’). And it lacks any paradigm-connectable science (as symbolized by the red cross in C3). Consequently, the current-form counter-dynamic has just three active channels (red and green double-headed arrows), while neglecting nine (red crosses)! The counter-dynamic as currently constituted has at best ‘one-and-a-bit’ members (as opposed to its required three): C3 is completely missing, and C1 isn’t fit-for-purpose, leaving C2 (more-or-less!) and half of C1.
6. Launching the Counter-Dynamic: Strategic Imperatives
There is hope (Fig. 4). But to realize that hope, to bring it to fruition, we must initiate and energize a sufficiently-powerful version of Fig. 4’s response-complex. And we’re currently far from ‘sufficient power’ (Fig. 7). Here are just a few concrete things we need to do, to move towards minimal adequacy:
I. While C2 is arguably the most-developed component of the response-complex [x], regrettably it can sometimes degrade into arguing intellectually with philosophical ‘substance materialism’. While cognitive challenge to metacrisis-dynamics is crucial, it needs to be well-formed, and complemented by emotional/energetic/spiritual activism [xiii].
II. For C1 to be maximally-effective, it must include a Ground-recognizing psychospirituality. But these are super-unpopular in sophisticated modernity! Advaita (a non-dual school of Hinduism), Buddhism, Gaia-theories and even indigenous shamanic approaches are palatable. But anything with a ‘GoB’-word must be reduced to one-of-the-preceding! We have to get over this. Recognizing a Ground distinct from a One-Being doesn’t mean accepting a white-haired patriarch in the sky. It means real open-mindedness, towards how Reality might in fact Be.
For C1 to be maximally-effective, it must also integrate psychotherapy and psychospirituality. Why? Because the C1-container must be a place into which metacrisis-related fear/anger can explode, and land. This calls for a psychotherapeutic meeting of primal ‘dark’ energies, in addition to exquisitely-nuanced, Ground-open, psychospiritual treatments of ‘Deep Reality’.
III. The first baby-steps into C3 have already been conceptually defined [xi]. But they have to be invested in, and brought to life. For example, the ‘One Experiment’ [xi] must be carried out. And there needs to be active further investment – intellectual and financial – in the next generation of C3-theory-and-experiment [xiv].
IV. Points I-III above address Fig. 4’s three response-components C1-C3 separately. We must also create a forum/community/mechanism for cross-component communication, alignment, and mutual-support. It seems likely that any resultant community must collectively engage in some way with C1-practices, in ways and to depths that are authentic for community-members.
V. Whether or not a putative Fig.-4-community engages with C1-practices, surely anyone seriously concerned with the metacrisis must reflect deeply on the possibilities advanced in the current series of articles. One component of this enquiry must be self-reflection. Notably, Fig. 2 suggests that each of us is freely choosing to originate the metacrisis. Even if we initially reject this idea: surely we must accept the possibility that failure-to-engage with any or all of I-IV above may in fact be an expression of these covert, subconscious, choices. Put differently: deep self-reflection, for example in relation to possibilities suggested in this series of articles, must be a critical and ongoing activity, for anyone seriously concerned about the metacrisis, and how to respond to it.
Note that I-V above are all significantly (and often mainly!) about practice, as opposed to theory. Nevertheless, each suggestion also has non-trivial conceptual content. Many make major conceptual contributions. (For example, Godel-like theorems discussed under III [xi].) For the whole complex to function, the practice-theory balance must be exquisitely recognized, and nurtured. Notably, there may be edges at which ‘practice’ and ‘theory’ are not separable …
Without the initiatives outlined in I-V above, metacrisis-response utilizes at best three-out-of-twelve possible channels (Fig. 7). This is unacceptable. Somethings (e.g. I-V!) have to be done.
7. Gifts from the Edge-of-Time: Wholes, Coping, Healing, Ending, Meaning …
Section 5 emphasized some simple and direct messages from the approach taken here. I’ll close with some more abstract, but still valuable, points.
A. The biggest whole in which we participate is not the planet, but Total Reality. In fact (Fig. 2), we are causally implicated in the origins of the Universe itself! This can be a double-edged message. We are powerful beyond current understanding. But we seem to be mis-directing that power (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, remedying the mis-direction – which is entirely possible (Fig. 4!) – will leave us solely with our Cosmically-Creative, unambiguously-benevolent nature.
B. A number of major projects are concerned with mitigating the effects of an ongoing metacrisis. Of course, these are crucial. But nothing here has been directly about mitigation. Instead, we’ve been concerned with emptying and healing metacrisis-dynamics. Perhaps one very powerful takeaway is that collective withdrawal from Fig. 2’s choices can and will completely end crises.
C. If we choose to, we can see the metacrisis as a purposeful, orderly, crucible, pointing us into a depth humankind hasn’t yet navigated [xv]. And we don’t actually need ‘everyone else’ to join that navigation. We can find meaning in personal transformational practices that are our ‘solo’, maximal-responses, in the absence of collective joining-in e.g. with Fig. 4’s complex.
8. Summary
The purpose of this article is to give a concrete illustration of how an ‘out of time’ metacrisis-causation hypothesis can be developed into a systems-thinking picture (Fig. 1). And to give a demonstration of the usefulness of that picture, notably in terms of developing effective response (Figs. 4 to 7).
Turning a generic out-of-time hypothesis [i] into a concrete model (Fig. 1) calls for further specific details: here I’ve used what I call a ‘Four-Factor Deep-Reality’ (‘4F-DR’) model [ii], to account for out-of-time/edge-of-time structure. (Causal powers. Key players. Etc.)
The metacrisis-causation part of Fig. 1’s model is developed in two steps (Figs. 2 and 3). First, out-of-time choices are linked to development of matter, time, and metacrisis (Fig. 2). Then we identify additional, in-time, reinforcing factors (Fig. 3). The picture is somewhat desperate: originating choices are obscured by factors that appear to be continually intensifying.
However, there is hope (Figs. 4 to 6). We can develop and energize a three-component metacrisis-response. One important value of the metacrisis-causation part of the model (Fig. 3) is that it identifies specific targets for this response (Fig. 6).
Another important benefit from this approach is that it points out how current responses are far from what ultimately may be required. Certainly, we are far from the most-powerful response-complex possible (section 6, Fig. 7). Notably, the 4F-DR hypothesis leads to precise and specific requirements, if a ‘spiritual’ component of the response is to be fit-for-purpose.
A major intention of this work is to offer Fig. 1 as a starting-point for further refinement, in the belief that these kinds of models can be extremely effective tools for collective coordination. But a further gift from this work is to support individuals e.g. in seeing certain kinds of transformational practice as meaningful metacrisis-responses – even if humankind at a large-scale, collective level prefers to follow the metacrisis-path (section 7).
9. Coming Up …
“The Metacrisis and Personal Transformation (4): What’s Gaia Got to Do With It?!(And: Ouranos!)”
Out-of-time causation for the metacrisis might seem to take the human factor out. Where’s the examination, for example, of patriarchal influences?! In this article, I take a more-detailed view of edge-of-time mechanics, in particular how alleged-separation from real-Reality can play out in Masculine/Feminine aspects. I then connect this to women and men, patriarchy and matriarchy, healing and transformation …
“The Metacrisis and Personal Transformation (5): ‘Planetary Meta-Leadership’ As A Personal Capacity”
This article is the first in a closing trilogy, moving towards more concrete implementations of the somewhat conceptual developments of the preceding four installments. I define and explain ‘Planetary Meta-Leadership’ as a personal capacity to directly connect with and navigate the terrain discussed in this series. (Thus, this kind of Leadership is definitively not a new layer of elite, hierarchical ‘rulership’!) I illustrate its application, by considering a number of hard ‘what’s to be done’ questions.
To connect with me on the topics discussed here, please leave a comment, or DM or email me.
If you’re interested in my life experience, as a background to these metacrisis musings, check out https://www.liveyourdeepestself.com/about-nicholas.
My 1-1 transformational coaching work both informs and is informed by the topics discussed in this series. To find out more, please visit www.liveyourdeepestself.com.
Endnotes
[i] The out-of-time metacrisis-causation hypothesis was introduced in ‘The Metacrisis and Personal Transformation (1): How Deep is Enough?’. It doesn’t deny there are in-time causal modes. But it suggests that ultimately these modes are expressing a deeper, out-of-time or edge-of-time, common cause.
[ii] The ‘Four-Factor Deep-Reality’ model (‘4F-DR’) was introduced in ‘The Metacrisis and Personal Transformation (2): Psychosis, Meta-Psychosis, and Reality-Limitation’. The ‘Four’ factors are: the Ground-of-Being, One-Being, Individuations, and the ARC (the ‘Agency that Restructures Consciousness’). These Four are non-separate but distinct Identities. They all have causal powers far beyond those of any human – mainly because currently-typical human identification occurs within a common Dream of a group of Individuations. ‘Deep’ Reality is beyond this Dream. (An ‘Individuation’ corresponds to some definitions of ‘Soul’, although I avoid that term because of multiple controversies!)
[iii] If you’ve never heard of ‘systems thinking’, here are two-minute and ten-minute YouTube-video introductions. (Obviously, at a very elementary level!) If you want more, here’s an hour-long MIT YouTube offer, which includes a discussion of books, websites, software etc. – a plethora of places-to-find-out-more!
[iv] How does humankind ‘actively and consciously intensify the pervasive belief that the pseudo-reality is Total-Reality’? Certainly, philosophical substance-materialism is one mode. But it’s a mistake to see this as the only one. For example, what I’ve called ‘dynamically-orthodox physics’ is a substance-independent way (https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/v9yrp) to construe local-reality as an independent-totality. And humans can unconsciously intensify ‘pseudo-reality = Total-Reality’ without even activating an explicit, conscious, cognitive-justification for that intensification.
[v] The current ‘Metacrisis and Personal Transformation’ series takes seriously the question of how much understanding is needed for successful metacrisis-navigation. The search for more understanding doesn’t always lead to better outcomes; the contrary belief is arguably part of metacrisis-causation. For example, see Figure 5 in ‘The Metacrisis and Personal Transformation (1): How Deep is Enough?’.
[vi] The imagination of pervasive separation appears within this Universe in many forms. One of the most familiar is the currently-typical identification of humans with separate matter-bodies. Another that usually goes unrecognized, is the separation between spacetime and the movement of matter-energy (recapitulated in modern physics as the currently-irreconcilable divide between general relativity and quantum field theory). Spacetime and matter-energy movement are as separate as possible (the Dream!), whilst not being able to completely escape non-separation (Reality!). (The connection – or non-separation? Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move.)
[vii] We aren’t ‘conceptually open’ currently.) to our causal-participation in the origins of our Universe, because our ‘I’-images are typically very diminished. We see ourselves as figures within the Dream (bodies!), not Dreamers of the entire Dream. This is what makes the metacrisis so difficult. At the same time, one of the gifts of the metacrisis is to drive our attention towards this issue. See section 7.
[viii] ‘ARC’: the Agency that Restructures Consciousness, one of the ‘Four Factors’ in 4F-DR.
[ix] In fact, there’s only one psychospiritual framework I’m currently aware of that fulfills all the demands of effective metacrisis-response, in the sense of Fig. 4 and especially Fig. 6A. That approach is what I’ve called ‘SAT-C++’ elsewhere. For more details, please visit the podcast www.veilstothesoul.com, or this video series on the Center for Dialogue in Science’s YouTube channel.
‘SAT’ in ‘SAT-C++’ comes from ‘Sacred Attention Therapy’, Richard Harvey’s extraordinary integration of Western psychotherapy with certain forms of non-dual spirituality (www.therapyandspirituality.com, Your Essential Self). ‘C++’ refers to extensions of Harvey’s already-pioneering work, required for maximally-effective metacrisis-activism.
Claiming that SAT-C++ is the maximally-effective metacrisis-response framework does not deny the validity of other frames or paths. Notably, it’s far more important to be authentic to one’s own path, than to try to conform to someone else’s claim of ‘maximally-effective metacrisis-responsiveness’!
[x] Of the three components in Fig. 4’s metacrisis-response, C2 is arguably the most collectively fleshed-out and accepted, currently. (Although that level of ‘acceptance’ is still very marginal, compared to mainstream science!) Organizations such as the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Scientific and Medical Network have been advocating for out-of-paradigm data since the 1970s. More recently, Exploring Consciousness has been seeking to bring together disparate organizations into a unified network (as well as originating a number of novel initiatives).
[xi] For a relatively brief introduction to this territory, see One Experiment to Start Them All: The Missing Foundation of Consciousness Science. For a comprehensive treatment, please refer to From Godel to Trump: A Three-Step Resolution to Science’s Emergent Crisis. The latter work established Godel-like theorems for the physical science of phenomenal consciousness.
[xii] This article is the third in a series of seven. In the three concluding articles, I’ll get closer to concrete responses to specific metacrisis sub-themes, and how the response-complex depicted in Fig. 4 connects to them.
[xiii] For example, existing transformational initiatives sometimes try to argue against substance materialism using data on Near-Death Experiences (‘NDEs’). Of course, it’s vital to mount cogent intellectual challenges to Step-5’s ‘local reality = Total Reality’ belief. But it’s also vital to base those challenges on the right foundation: modern physics doesn’t identify itself with substance materialism! Additionally, engagement in emotional, energetic, and ‘spiritual’ dimensions is even more vital than cognitive/intellectual challenges!
[xiv] One example of next-generation C3-activity is experimental exploration of Robert Rosen’s extraordinary work in theoretical biology. (See Life Itself for a very technical introduction, or Essays on Life Itself for a more qualitative survey.) Although Rosen’s work is perhaps receiving greater recognition (albeit at an achingly-slow pace), few seem to appreciate that it predicts novel experimental observations, for example in systems biology (e.g. in details of intra-cellular molecular dynamics).
[xv] Claims of ‘new spiritual depths’ for humankind to attain have to be treated very carefully. We came from the deepest Depths there are! (In fact, we’ve never left those Depths: we’re just Dreaming that we have!) When I say ‘we’re being pointed towards a depth that humankind hasn’t navigated before’, I’m referring to a collective reclamation of those Depths, starting from the sophisticated and utterly-lost viewpoint of modern science. Specific human individuals have already revisited and returned to those Depths. (For example, in my belief-system, the historical Jesus. But he didn’t traverse that trajectory starting from modern science, and taking it with him. This is just one sense in which humankind must traverse new frontiers.)