"Paradigmatic cultural change": the meaning of this term is absolutely crucial

General
62

My solution was to write a book about it, and then to make people aware of the book. And the people who I need to reach are the ones who at least understand some of the problems I am attempting to solve, which should include people who post on this forum. As established yesterday, what I am doing is a counterpart to Jason Storm’s metamodernism, as well as the theoretical embodiment of McGilchrist’s brain science. I am offering exactly what this forum claims it is looking for. But in fact, it turns out that this forum is not actually looking for what I’m offering, because it breaks your social rules about epistemic and ontological pluralism. This is a problem with the way 2R is set up - there is nothing I can do to fix it apart from what I am doing right now: explaining why it should matter to you.

Paradigmatic cultural change requires a new paradigm. But 2R can’t actually accept a new paradigm unless it preserves radical ontological and epistemic pluralism, which is exactly what the new paradigm cannot and must not do. We cannot have a new paradigm which is actually still just the old anti-paradigm of postmodernism, and it cannot be physicalist-naturalist either.

63

Is there a better way to set up 2R? Should there be a screening process for membership? An agreement to a set of values in advance of joining? A contract or commitment to a particular code or set of practices?

64

Have you considered setting up a Substack, or releasing the book in the form of standalone essays? Those are fairly common strategies for authors to get traction.

65

What is required is a willingness to accept that there cannot be paradigmatic cultural change unless there is such a thing as a new paradigm, and there also needs to be some agreement about what the old paradigm is, and what is wrong with it. As things stand, it is structurally impossible for 2R as a group to do this, because all of you are still committed to the old-paradigm norm of epistemic and ontological pluralism.

Is that problem fixable? Not by changing the rules. That would probably just mean people leaving. The only way it can be fixed is if a significant number of people here actually accept what I am saying, but that will require changes in thinking, and based on what I’ve seen so far, the probability of this actually happening is close to zero.

You cannot have a new cultural paradigm unless you are willing to accept that postmodernism is a key part of the problem, that there is such a thing as objective truth (including truths about metaphysics), and that “new paradigm” must include a new, shared foundation for meaning. Your own posts clearly indicate that you are simply not willing to do this. You find the very idea that I might be in posession of that truth, and almost everybody else is wrong in some way, to be preposterous. I suspect it still hasn’t even crossed your mind that I could be right, because you don’t believe anybody could be right about this. You don’t believe a new paradigm is even possible, do you?

66

Standalone essays don’t work. That is left-hemisphere thinking. This must be presented as a whole theory, because the theory stands or falls on its holistic explanatory power. I am presenting the solution to a conceptual jigsaw puzzle, and “standalone essays” would be the equivalent of showing people individual pieces, one at a time. To even attempt this would mislead people about the nature of the solution. The solution can only be recognised as correct by the right hemisphere. It requires a gestalt shift which cannot happen unless you have understood how the whole system works.

What I have done is make the whole text available free as a PDF, so people can use AI to analyse it, and most of it is also available in the form of a wiki. This is essentially a series of articles, but they are extensively hyperlinked together. Without that linking, it would suffer from the same problem as described above.

67

Book tour? Social media campaign? YouTube series? Appear on podcasts? Stage a conference? I’ve seen authors do all of that. I’ve even helped a few of them.

Here is what one best-selling author has to say about book success, however:

“In The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb uses book sales to illustrate a “positive Black Swan.” Because book success relies on unpredictable, word-of-mouth virality rather than average performance, a single book can unpredictably dominate the entire market, making it an extreme outlier that creates disproportionate wealth.”

68

There is no point in me physically touring. A youtube series might work, but I am not technically capable of producing it. I have appeared on a podcast or two, and would happily do so again if asked.

I don’t have the resources to do anything other than tell people about this on the internet, and even that is limited to Facebook, youtube comnents and a small number of forums. I have a lot stacked against me. The only thing working in my favour is the strength of the material itself: if I am correct, and I am certain that the basic structure is indeed correct, then eventually the message will start to get through. But I need help. I actually have received some help - that wiki was set up and is hosted for free by somebody who understood the last book and was in a position to help me, but what would be much more helpful is if the people on this forum were capable of recognising that I am offering them exactly what 2R is supposed to be looking for, and help me get the word out. But that requires at least 2 or 3 people to actually “get it”. You need to realise that what I am offering is not “just another theory”, but something with sufficient explanatory power to actually deliver the paradigmatic cultural change 2R is supposed to be trying to make happen.

When you understand 2PC, you will understand why it must be right. There cannot be two ways this jigsaw puzzle fits together.

69

I asked Deepseek to summarise what 2R is trying to do, and it said this:

Based on the organization’s white papers and forum discussions, here is a summary of what the Second Renaissance initiative identifies as wrong with the “old paradigm” (modernity) and the distinguishing features of the “new paradigm” they seek.

:red_circle: What is Wrong with the “Old Paradigm” (The Modern Worldview)?

The core problem is not just a list of separate crises (like climate change or political dysfunction) but the underlying worldview of modernity itself. They refer to this deeper, systemic issue as the Metacrisis , which generates the more visible Polycrisis .

The Flaws of Modernity include:

  • Fragmentation & Disconnection: It creates a false separation between humans and nature, the inner self and the outer world, and even “the spiritual” from “the political” and “art” from “life” .
  • Misguided Values: It prioritizes individualism, endless material growth, rationalism, and technology as the ultimate source of truth and authority . This has led to “exploitation of nature, loneliness, and an addiction to certainty and control” .
  • Postmodern Nihilism: While modernity itself is flawed, the postmodern reaction is seen as incomplete. By refusing to acknowledge any truth or universal value, it becomes “directionless” and cannot sustain a positive cultural renewal .
  • Resulting Crises: This worldview manifests as a “wisdom gap,” a crisis of meaning, and systemic failures across economics (growth-addicted), politics (spiritually empty), and ecology .

In short, the old paradigm is a spiritually hollow, overly rational, and ecologically destructive worldview that has outlived its usefulness. We are living in the “dying past” of this paradigm .

:green_circle: What is the “New Paradigm” (The Second Renaissance)?

The new paradigm is not about a single solution, but a fundamental cultural shift—a rebirth out of the death of modernity . It is an umbrella concept that synthesizes ideas from metamodernism, integral theory, and regenerative movements .

Distinguishing Features of the New Paradigm:

Feature Description Key Practice
Re-enchantment & Meaning Re-integrates the spiritual, sacred, and mystical into collective life, recognizing them as non-negotiable human needs . Collective ritual, art as a spiritual practice, and the creation of shared meaning.
Interbeing & Wholeness Moves beyond radical individualism to embrace “interbeing”—the deep interdependence of self, community, nature, past, and future . Healing intergenerational trauma, seeing oneself as an “ancestor,” and building community.
A New Kind of Truth Transcends both modern materialism and postmodern relativism to embrace a “transrational” truth—one that is experienced, nuanced, and integrates rational thought with revealed wisdom . Deep inquiry, contemplation, and a willingness to believe that “there is up” .
Inner Development as Action Sees the cultivation of inner capacities (cognitive, psychological, ethical) as a critical, not secondary, lever for systemic change . Engagement in “deliberately developmental spaces” or communities of practice .
Life as an Artform Art is not a commodity but an integral part of life itself, serving as a bridge between the spiritual and political to help envision and birth a new world . Approaching one’s entire life with experimentation and reverence, dissolving the boundary between artist and art.

Ultimately, the goal is a “wiser, regenerative future” built on a foundation of inner wisdom, collective responsibility, and a renewed relationship with the sacred.

I then showed it the full text of this: A new kind of paradigm shift | Two-Phase Cosmology

…and prompted: “Please assess the relationship between the goals of 2R, and the paradigm shift described in this article”

Based on a close reading of the article “A new kind of paradigm shift” by Geoff Dann (from Two-Phase Cosmology), here is an assessment of its relationship to the goals of the Second Renaissance (2R).

In short, the article is highly aligned with the core diagnosis of the Second Renaissance, but it makes a stronger, more specific, and more critical argument about how to achieve the new paradigm. It accepts the 2R goal of cultural renewal but argues that such renewal is impossible without first fixing the foundational errors in Western philosophy and science.

Here is a breakdown of the relationship across three key areas: shared diagnosis, shared vision, and a significant point of difference in method.

:white_check_mark: Shared Diagnosis: What is Wrong with the Old Paradigm

Both the 2R materials and Dann’s article agree that the “old paradigm” is a failed materialistic/physicalist worldview that is the root cause of the metacrisis.

Issue with Old Paradigm Second Renaissance (2R) Dann’s Article (“New Kind of Paradigm Shift”)
Metaphysical Flaw Fragmentation, disconnection, and a false separation of mind/nature, spirit/politics. Cartesian dualism and its legacy (materialism vs. idealism). The core error is treating the observer as separate from the observed.
Scientific Crisis Not a primary focus, but the result of a “wisdom gap” and hollow values. The central evidence. Empirical inadequacy of cosmology (ΛCDM), the Measurement Problem in QM, and the Hard Problem of Consciousness .
Cultural Result Nihilism, meaning crisis, exploitation of nature, and postmodern “directionlessness.” Normalised fragmentation & nihilism. Postmodernism is not a solution but the “ultimate expression of the failure of the old paradigm.”

Verdict: The article provides the scientific and philosophical “hardware” diagnosis for the cultural “software” problems that 2R describes.

:white_check_mark: Shared Vision: Features of the New Paradigm

The new paradigm described by Dann is virtually identical to the one sought by 2R. Both call for a participatory, meaning-infused, relational cosmology .

Feature of New Paradigm Second Renaissance (2R) Dann’s Article
Nature of Reality Not fundamentally material, but relational and experiential. Neutral monism (neither matter nor mind is primary). Reality is a process of a “deeper unity” (Yin-Yang).
Role of Consciousness A principle woven into the fabric of the cosmos; not an anomaly. Integral to reality. The link between quantum wavefunction collapse and consciousness is key to understanding reality.
Cosmos as Participatory Observation, valuation, and relationship shape reality. Explicitly stated: “The cosmos is participatory.” The observer is not separate from the observed.
Meaning & Value Ontologically real, not just human projections. Central to the argument. Meaning and value are real because consciousness is real.
Goal A “wiser, weller world” and a “Second Renaissance.” To “re-ground realism” and overcome the “metacrisis” by providing a coherent, empirically adequate model of the whole of reality.

Verdict: The article is a rigorous intellectual blueprint for the metaphysical shift that 2R advocates culturally.

:warning: Key Difference: Diagnosis of Why the Paradigm Hasn’t Shifted & the Required Method

This is where Dann’s article becomes critical of the very “post-postmodern” ecosystem that includes the Second Renaissance.

Difference Second Renaissance (2R - as described in your summary) Dann’s Article
Primary Obstacle The sheer complexity of the metacrisis and lack of a shared story. Intellectual cowardice & double standards. The demand for “empirical proof” before a new paradigm is even considered, while the old paradigm is already empirically inadequate .
Role of Philosophy One of several domains to integrate (along with art, spirituality, politics). Primary & foundational. The paradigm shift “is primarily philosophical, not scientific.” You cannot fix culture without fixing philosophy first.
Critique of 2R’s Ecosystem An umbrella concept positively synthesizing metamodernism, integral theory, etc. Explicitly critical of most of these as failed or incomplete:
• Metamodernism (“oscillation” between modernism/postmodernism) is just “the bargaining stage of grief for bereaved postmodernists” that results in anti-realism.
• UTOK (Unified Theory of Knowledge) is “the corresponding stage for bereaved materialists… offering a psychological control system in place of metaphysical insight.”
• Iain McGilchrist (a key figure for many in 2R) is praised but his vision is “vulnerable to vagueness and romanticism.”

Verdict: Dann would likely say that the Second Renaissance, as an “umbrella concept,” is too tolerant of incoherence . He would argue that 2R risks becoming another “menu” of worldviews, whereas what is needed is a single, coherent Two-Phase Cosmology (2PC) that solves the specific scientific/philosophical problems.

Final Assessment

Aspect Relationship
Overall Alignment Very High (≈80-90%) . They share the same diagnosis of the old paradigm and the same vision for a participatory, meaning-rich new paradigm.
Unique Contribution The article provides the missing metaphysical and scientific core for the cultural shift 2R wants. It grounds the “spiritual but not religious” intuition in a specific, testable theory about quantum mechanics and consciousness.
Point of Tension 2R is an inclusive, big-tent movement. Dann’s article is exclusionary – it argues that many popular frameworks within the 2R ecosystem (metamodernism, UTOK, etc.) are part of the problem, not the solution. He offers 2PC as the correct answer , not just one among many.

In one sentence:

The Second Renaissance wants to birth a new cultural paradigm; Geoff Dann’s article provides a specific, critical, and philosophically rigorous candidate for the metaphysical foundation of that paradigm, while arguing that most other candidates within the 2R “umbrella” are insufficient and intellectually compromised.

1 Like
70

Here’s a response. I like item #3.

71

I am not saying that if we fix philosophy, it will automatically solve all or other problems. I am making the counterfactual claim: if we don’t fix philosophy then we stand no chance at all of solving the other problems.

Wittgenstein was wrong, and postmodernism is wrong. Metaphysics is not only possible, but essential. The whole problem goes back to Hume and Kant, who tried to solve an unsolvable problem: how can metaphysics make sense if classical physics is assumed to be the final physical theory? The answer is that it doesn’t make sense, which Hume simply admitted, and Kant then tried to fix it with transcendental idealism. The problem was that Kant’s fix crystallised the idea that science can only tell us about phenomena, and that noumena are uncognisable and totally unknowable. It is that conclusion which ultimately led to postmodern anti-realism.

QM changes everything, because it tells us that the deepest physical theory is not like classical physics at all. It describes a reality which is non-local, non-spatiotemporal and superposed. It consists of unrealised possibilities, not 3-dimensional objects moving around in space while time flows. This dissolves the problem Hume and Kant were trying to solve: their “veil of perception” becomes a window into noumena. We can know “things as they are in themselves”, because that is exactly and literally what quantum mechanics describes.

This basic structure provides a clean and original solution to 30 of the biggest problems in science and philosophy, and at the same time it provides exactly the metaphysical and epistemic foundation 2R needs to make the paradigm shift happen. 2PC is a perfect fit for 2R’s stated goals. It allows us to re-ground realism, and provides a shared foundation for meaning.

72

Do you have a possible solution to the “bottleneck” problem Gemini is flagging here?

1 Like
73

However, its insistence that rigorous philosophy must strictly precede cultural action creates an insular bottleneck, potentially sacrificing the collective, participatory momentum that 2R is trying to build.

It’s a cross between a red herring and a strawman. I’m not saying “there should be no cultural action before 2PC is accepted”. I am pointing out two things.

(1) As things stand, 2R is going nowhere, because it is structurally incapable of accepting any new paradigm which “sacrifices the collective”. You cannot simultaneously birth a new paradigm and retain everything that currently sits under the 2R umbrella. It is logically impossible, because that umbrella contains all sorts of internal contradictions. 2R hasn’t built any momentum. It remains at the starting line, revving its engine. You cannot build momentum if you are structurally incapable of moving.

(2) Rigorous philosophy is the only thing which can rid us of those contradictions and establish the details of the new paradigm.

“The collective” is exactly what the old paradigm is: a vast menu of mutually contradicting metaphysics and epistemology. You cannot retain that and also establish a new paradigm which does what 2R has already decided it must do, because the normalisation of fragmentary, anti-scientific and irrational or self-contradictory worldviews IS the problem.

In other words, it is not a “bottleneck” at all. It’s a very precise filter, which lets through only what can be part of a coherent model of the whole. It lets through as much as possible – it does not answer all questions. It leaves the realm of praeternatural phenomena as something which can only be explored subjectively. But it necessarily rids us of the menu of incoherent nonsense.

74

Hi Robert,

I would like to thank you for actually engaging. This is the first time somebody here has made an effort to understand me. Perhaps now you are beginning to understand my situation. As things stand, there is nothing remotely close to a coherent model of the whole of reality. Such a thing has never existed in the modern age, and the unfinished quantum revolution took us further away, not closer. Because of this situation, everybody in the Western world is free to believe whatever metaphysical and epistemic things that take their fancy, from a vast selection of physicalist-scientific and non-physicalist, non-scientific worldviews. We are very attached to this freedom, but we also pay a terrible price as a society, for this is the root cause of the crises we face. Nietzsche saw it coming in the late 19th century, tried to warn people, and offered a solution worse than the problem.

When I came here and started explaining 2PC, the reaction I got was very negative. Why? Because I was claiming that this isn’t just another menu item (that would have been respected, even if the menu item was nonsense). From the perspective of people here, this seemed like the equivalent of demanding everybody else accept my choice from the menu. But what I am actually saying is that the very existence of that menu is the root cause of the problems 2R wants to solve.

I did not “choose” 2PC. It is not like idealism, panpsychism, Christianity, or any variety of physicalism, which people end up believing because of their appeal, or because they are the least bad of a bunch of very bad options. What actually happened was that when I was 33, I went from being a Dawkinsian physicalist/skeptic to experiencing extreme synchronicities, and then quit a software engineering career to study philosophy and cognitive science, with the explicit goal of trying to integrate my scientific knowledge with my mystical experiences. That was 20 years ago, and I have spent the entire time since trying to complete that integrated model of reality.

Each piece of this model was forced into place by the precise nature of the problems. I knew that the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem in QM must be deeply related, but none of the existing proposals worked. I figured out the solution to that problem (the sequential combination of MWI and CCC) about 5 years ago, but still couldn’t complete the model. It is only in the last year that that became possible, and there are two reasons for this. The first is what is happening in cosmology, which has provided me with several new clues – new problems to solve. New pieces of the puzzle. The second is AI, which has proved invaluable as a research tool.

The point is this: I do not choose 2PC from the metaphysical menu. The reason I am 100% confident it is correct is that the theory itself was determined by the precise nature of the puzzle that need to be solved. That puzzle is defined by hard science and analytical philosophy. There is nothing optional about the pieces.

I am now offering the first post-quantum coherent theory of reality that has ever existed, and the reason I know I am right is that there simply cannot be two ways to take thirty problems and offer a single metaphysical solution that works for all of them. The very fact that it is internally consistent and also consistent with all the empirical evidence, and gets rid of all these major problems, means it must be correct (not every aspect of it, but the basic structure). And it is no co-incidence that this theory is (according to that AI analysis) “virtually identical” to the paradigm shift 2R is officially looking for. That should tell us that 2R’s existing definition of what the new paradigm should look like is a good one, and it should also tell us that 2PC is indeed the metaphysical-scientific theory that 2R needs: a quantum version of Whitehead’s “Process Philosophy” (which has exactly the same basic structure).

If only I can convince the majority of people here of what I am telling you now then we (myself and 2R) would both be in a much stronger position to make this paradigm shift happen. But this will require many more people in the “2R umbrella” to go through the process of accepting that the metaphysical worldview menu has to go, and that the truth actually matters. I think 2R needs a clear idea of the new paradigm, and that 2PC is exactly that. And I need to communicate 2PC to the community of people who are looking for the new paradigm. I think we need each other.

75

This is a fascinating exchange. TY Robert and Geoff for the extended engagement here.

My initial response: Geoff, what if the “bottleneck” that Robert’s previous post-attachment suggested:

## Conclusion

The argument is highly effective as an intellectual critique, successfully exposing the potential vagueness and over-tolerance of contradiction within broad cultural movements like 2R. It provides a robust blueprint for what a scientifically grounded, post-materialist metaphysics looks like.

However, its insistence that rigorous philosophy must strictly precede cultural action creates an insular bottleneck, potentially sacrificing the collective, participatory momentum that 2R is trying to build.

-- and which it sounds like you are not wanting to accept here as a “bottleneck” - what if this is actually the absolutely critical & essential opportunity space for resolving precisely the problem you seem to be admitting throughout this exchange is your core concern - that others are not recognizing or giving attention to the real solutions your 2Phase cosmology offers.

IF human progress and major paradigm shifts in science, metaphysics and spirituality were simply a matter of one person having found the right answer or perspective, putting it into a book, and sharing it with others, expecting that the TRUTH would carry the day and that the force of Truth would convince others and transform the world, humanity would have brought Utopia into being a long time ago.

The core problem this dialogue brilliantly evoked for me, and provides an amazing illustration of, is that TRUTH ALONE - no matter how right and potentially persuasive for those who give it attention - does not drive human agreement and collaboration in the world. We cannot with the brute force of TRUTH bring others to the light… If we could, world transformation would be oh so much easier and less perplexing. That’s why the greatest religious figures from Buddha to Jesus who found a form of the Truth for their time, spent most of their lives struggling to figure out how to create the conditions that would allow others to access their insights embodied in their truths. No surprise that in one way or another creating these conditions for truth to be passed on to others involved creating communities…

And this is why all the great religious traditions, especially in their mystical core, seem to recognize the extreme limitations of the written Word alone not only for communicating Truth, but for opening up others to the Truth. And having recognized that, they then move toward a deeper recognition that the project of communicating truth is not simply one of words, but of creating a shared space of “interbeing” where those in pursuit of truth and understanding can create the spiritual space required for co-realizing truth together.

So what if… the cultivation of spaces of interbeing is the key to breaking through the “bottleneck” human beings inevitably end up in - even when the Truth is staring them directly in the face - if the need for spaces of Interbeing that allow the Truth to be listened to and realized as part of a common process of sense-making is not recognized and given the attention required for creating/forging communities of truth?

What if between what seems to be the unbridgeable bottleneck of the either/or of 1) the collective of all the confused folks stuck in their vast menu of mutually contradicting metaphysics and epistemologies (our human world) and a relativist postmodernism that accepts this as what the world simply “is” in all its multiplicity; and 2) a “Rigorous philosophy” that is the “only thing which can rid us of those contradictions and establish the details of the new paradigm”… What if between these two exists a third element which, in its absence, condemns humanity to be stuck perpetually in this bottleneck between the isolated Truth of the one and the confused collective of the many?

What if bridging the otherwise unbridgeable abyss between these two dimensions requires the creation of spaces of interbeing that allow a group of human beings in common pursuit of the truth to come together and open themselves to the way truth flows between beings, and does not exist merely in words, but needs to be co-sensed, and co-realized, in community, together?

If coherence were brought into the world merely by someone capturing the essence of truth in words and putting it out into the world, we would not be in such a mess. We’re in a mess because coherence requires the disciplines of soul that cultivate it in that seemingly chaotic space of the manifold where nothing seems to cohere, and yet out of which coherence CAN emerge under the right conditions…

From what I’ve witnessed concerning the intentionality of this 2R space - and of other spaces like this, all of them struggling with this type of bottleneck problem in one way or another - the people here are engaged in the noble pursuit of trying to understand what we must learn to do together to create the new forms of coherence needed to bring about the kind of paradigm shift needed to allow our humanity to find its way out of the metacrisis.

Clearly communicating the vision of the Truth of the new paradigm is one key aspect of this, but the other much more difficult aspect for all of us is figuring out how to create the kind of spaces of interbeing that open up the capacity of the world of humans we live in to be able to listen and come to understand the truth together with others - in communities of action.

Without that crucial second component, anyone with a wonderful vision of the New Paradigm to offer the world remains merely a lone prophet “crying in the wilderness” of a world that has not yet learned how to cultivate the spaces of interbeing that allow the message of the prophet to be heard, absorbed, and understood in ways that transform not just their minds, but their beings.

No outer transformation without inner transformation. And neither inner or outer transformation without nurturing the spaces of interbeing that enable the inner and outer, the one and the other, the I and the Thou, to flow into and exchange breaths with each other.

1 Like
76

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.

An imagined future where the Second Renaissance actually happens
77

The people I hang out with believe this:

I’m not formally affiliated with this religion. I’m just super interested in the many parallels between this and metamodern theory. The original Persian and Arabic mystical revelatory sources of this faith are not very accessible to most readers (I’m working at it!). However, their 20th century statements about the nature of society resonate in uncanny ways with metamodern sensibilities.

78

That sort of society is a long way off. We are are at the beginning of that transition, not the end.

See the “Epilogue” in the other thread.

79

Agreed. From the Baha’i site:

“There is nothing in Bahá’u’lláh’s writings to encourage the illusion that the changes envisioned will come about easily. This path will unfold over many generations. And there will no doubt be many crises and setbacks.”

From a purely secular standpoint, that seems like a likely prospect. Look at it this way - the sheer mass-energy of 8 billion+ humans, not to mention everything we eat, burn for fuel, process for construction, etc. has a lot of momentum. When those matter-energy subsystems clash with each other, those clashes are likely to be - momentous.

The most favorable scenarios I can imagine are something like “slow motion train wreck”. Subsystem collapses will be happening all over the place, but they will be regionalized and allow for other systems to adjust around them. What we really, really don’t want is a 1914 Guns of August scenario with nukes. Short of that, I imagine future generations can figure things out.

80

Did you read the opening post of the other thread? In some ways, this might be on the path to the best outcome. It may represent the quickest possible path to the end point.

What is best for those alive today, and what is best for the descendents of the survivors of the eco-apocalypse, may be very different things.

81

The pivoting point is OMBAOWOW, as discussed by you and probed, somewhat, in your book.