Thankyou quantum.ethos for a very constructive and helpful post. There are several important points I must make in response.
#1) We are at an unprecedented point in human history. We have never been closer to a collective uncovering of the basic Truths at the heart of mysticism, but we also face an immediate and extreme existential threat. For the whole of modern Western history, science and spirituality have been in conflict. This is because of the enshrinement of metaphysical and epistemological mistakes, as already described in this thread. For the first time, there is now an opportunity to correct these mistakes, but that can only happen if the paradigm shift spans both science and wider culture. It must be both scientifically and philosophically revolutionary. What remains the same is human nature, and there was always a resistance to Truth, even when it was being handed down by religious institutions and academics in ivory towers. However, the presence of science in this equation is new and significant. The coming revolution in science is going to come as a major shock to most mainstream scientists, who still have no inkling that physicalism is false, and that Schrodinger’s structural claim that Atman=Brahman is the deepest truth of them all. This is a necessary part of the structure: without it, 2PC doesn’t work (the Embodiment Threshold is the point where it becomes physically possible for Brahman to become an Atman). It will always be metaphysics rather than science, but it is very different to physicalism and naturalism. And the key thing to understand here is that the crisis in cosmology cannot be resolved with more physicalism. Only something like 2PC can resolve it. Note that I have already served a year’s suspension from this forum for my principled refusal to accept that physicalism has any legitimate place in 2R’s future – for refusing to accept that it should be respected.
#2) I made a very deliberate strategic decision to focus on the structure of reality – science and analytical philosophy. Nowhere in any of my last two books, or materials posted online, is there anything about spiritual development. If I’d included that then it would ultimately have made the job of communication even harder, because I’d be playing the role of spiritual teacher, guru or self-help practitioner. These things will still be required, but this is a role that other people can play much better than I can. I can’t act as neutral epistemic arbiter between science and spirituality and spiritual teacher, because those roles have too much potential for conflicts of interest. I think this turned into something of a problem for Ken Wilber.
#3) Regarding how this paradigm shift actually happens. I agree with you that organisations like 2R have a crucial role to play, and that there is no way I can do this on my own. I need 2R’s help, or I need to find some other person or group who can help me. I don’t have these answers. Part of the reason I am here is to start the work of finding those answers. In my previous book (The Real Paths to Ecocivilisation) I imagined my own “best possible future” – how the paradigm shift could happen. But that book was largely about accepting the inevitability of collapse, and that future possible timeline is likely to look very pessimistic to most people. I am imagining that it is only when the majority of the Western world actually accepts the existential threat is real and immediate that the deep changes will begin. I will post the relevant material in a separate thread. In that fictional timeline, an international organisation called “Metamorphosis” plays the role you are correctly pointing out is necessary.
Is there a better, less destructive, less painful way for this to happen? I don’t know, but I am very open to discussion about this. The only way I can see for it to happen is if an organisation like 2R was the first to actually accept what I’m saying as a group, and that transformation could itself act as a blueprint for how the change can occur elsewhere. But this cannot happen if people are not willing to go through a fundamental change in their own relationship to the Truth. It has to begin with a conclusive acceptance that postmodern pluralism is the central problem with groups like this – without that, no significant progress is possible. With it, the potential for progress is enormous. The same applies to scientific-minded people and accepting that physicalism is incoherent.
My proposal as a starting point is something less than the whole ontology-cosmology, and it features prominently at the conclusion of both my recent books. I call it the New Epistemic Deal. Maybe our discussion could start there. This is the most basic starting point for agreement. Anything less will fail to achieve the necessary goals.
Central to the NED is a change in terminology - the rejection of the natural/supernatural dichotomy as inadequate because of quantum indeterminism and the introduction of a new category of causality: the praeternatural.