Start Here.

HR

WELCOME TO 2EQ

For a brief outline of what this is all about you might see HERE for a podcast overview of the whole paradigm, and follow on from there for a few deeper explorations. You can also ask a question in the 2EQ Facebook Group. Or you can simply jump directly into chatting with one of the new A I MODELS.

In the meantime, you can treat this page as the short version of a very long story. The old long versions are still around; they did their job and nearly killed me. This is the cleaned-up version, after watching where people get lost.

Note - Because some of these posts tend to be quite long, you will often find an audio version available, which in this case can be found in a folder HERE . Feel free to simply listen instead.

What this is, in one hit -

2EQ makes a simple but very loaded claim:

Ordinary human psychology is not in its natural resting state.
We are running on an emergency patch – a concealed, dynamic “containment” that holds an old crisis out of awareness and quietly distorts everything.
Under certain conditions, this whole containment can collapse in one irreversible shift, and the system re-stabilizes in a second equilibrium where that burden is gone.

Two stable equilibriums.
One we call “normal life.” The other has always been treated as myth, miracle, or pathology because nobody had the anatomy.

2EQ is that anatomy.

That’s all you really need to know to decide whether to keep reading.

The basic picture -

Very compressed:

There is a submerged complex in every ordinary person. Not metaphorical – functional.
Its job is to keep a catastrophic emotional error out of awareness. It more or less works, but the cost is all the “mysterious struggle” people drag around.
Life in this state is like living in a room with a constant quiet alarm. You get used to it. You call it “me.”
Under enough pressure, this containment starts to fail. That period feels like hell, not progress.
A critical insight is required at that moment in order to snuff out the pilot flame that keeps igniting this whole inferno - and this is the key to 2EQ.
If the process completes, the system flips into a second equilibrium. The alarm is gone. The room is the same, but the noise isn’t there anymore. The change is structural, not a mood.

Key points:

It’s not incremental. No “75% enlightened.” Either the containment is structurally there or it isn’t.
It’s a one-shot physics problem. Half-attempts just increase pressure.
Historically, nobody had a clear map of the containment itself, only fragments from theology, mysticism, psychoanalysis, existentialism. So the process was rare, accidental, and badly interpreted when it appeared.

2EQ is the first attempt (as far as I can tell) to lay out the full working diagram: how the whole thing arose, how it holds together, and what it would actually mean to remove it.

Three stages: what has to happen -

Over time it’s become obvious that there are three distinct layers here:

1. Capture

Not “understanding” in the academic sense. This is the moment where the facts line up and you see the moral size of what’s being proposed.

There is a single, concealed structural problem.
It can be removed.
If that’s true, then a tiny upstream act (by very few people) can unleash a vast downstream release for everyone.
When that really lands, energy appears. That’s capture.

2. Comprehension

Once the moral penny has dropped, a drive emerges; suddenly you want more clarity.

What exactly is the containment?
How does the two-equilibrium structure work?
What are the risks, the thresholds, the ethical constraints?
This is the shift from “this is huge” to “this is precise, and here’s why.”

3. Cultural formation

This is where small groups with enough capture and comprehension design the first safe, controlled, reproducible applications: ways of navigating the one-shot transition without frying people.
Once a repeatable release signature appears, it will propagate almost automatically. At that point the world doesn’t need me; it needs competent teams and clear boundaries.

Everything else is noise.

Why there is no visible leader here -

Historically, anything pointing at this kind of shift arrives wrapped around a person: guru, prophet, enlightened being, whatever, but the track record of that arrangement is disastrous:

It locks the whole thing to one personality.
It confuses the map with the man.
It invites all the usual projections: worship, hatred, dependency, rebellion.

2EQ is designed to kill that pattern on sight.

I wrote the core material. I pushed it far enough to see that the architecture holds. But I also paid the personal price for doing that in a world that doesn’t yet know what it’s looking at. The first bit of water out of a pump is always dirty - you don't drink that bit. And that was me. I paid the price so that you would never need to, and this also explains the current transition and the sudden power associated. That’s history now.

Where we are:

The individual phase – one person hauling the whole thing uphill by hand – is over.
The collective phase – small groups, multiple centres of competence, no central guru – has to begin, or the whole thing should be dropped.

So you will not find a smiling headshot and a TED-style bio here. You will find a body of work, and you will occasionally find me, but not as a public figurehead or lifestyle brand. My job now is to build tools and media, not to stand at the front of the room.

I am still chatting away here actually, but only behind the scenes, and only ever with people who have clearly demonstrated both interest and ability, if only because anything else has been discovered to be futile. Unless you want to pay me for my time, in which case you can have it all personally fitted. Some people still find it helpful to have their own particular forms of this 'containment' identified. But that option wouldn't be cheap. The time of me doing stuff for free is now over.

So yes, while that might be available for a brief time, it's still not recommended. You already have everything you need here, and without some grumpy old guy getting in the way.

About the archives (and why they sound the way they do) -

If you dig around, you’ll find:

Early books (Organic Psychology etc.)
Long essays and “monsters” where I tried to get the whole thing down in one go
Audio conversations, fragments, rants

All of that is true to what I was doing at the time. It’s also the record of someone trying to lift an invisible bus with no crowd in sight. Unsurprisingly, the tone is not always serene.

Use those materials like this:

As context: they show how the paradigm emerged and what it costs to drag this thing into language.
As raw data: they contain metaphors, arguments, and diagrams that are still valid.
Not as the current operating manual: the site you are reading now is the streamlined version after a couple of decades of collision with reality.

Nothing in the archives is disowned, but it does require context, and a good filter. They are all just unedited manuscripts, often just letters to a friend. So that's certainly not where I’d send a new person first, if only because they also belong to paths that have now largely been abandoned in light of more recent developments.

A central dilemma to carefully navigate -

Here we will stop for a moment to see an important aspect. At the core of the paradigm lies a profound conundrum, but one which - if it can be overcome - stands to open the way for a very dramatic process of individual and collective change. The key factors that together form the heart of this puzzle are like the positive and negative poles of a battery - whenever you see them come together there can certainly be a few sparks.

Here they are in outline:

A. The scale and depth of the release event being pointed to - especially when extended into the collective - appears to be so overwhelming in its moral weight that the impetus associated can tend to eclipse all other concerns in favour of any path that might reach this singular 'ignition' threshold. It basically shines like a supernova ethically speaking, especially since that small 'avalanche trigger' appears to be resting so easily within collective reach.

Only when you begin to really dig into the mechanics associated do the full implications start to take shape, and - if you are ready - begin to animate extreme levels of absolute excitement.

B. The very nature of the activity that is undone in that transformational event, that being a 'concealment process', means that this is also the one thing most people are least prepared to look at. The very presence of the complex being indicated implies a barrier to awareness in this exact direction, with specific cognitive erosion in many cases, or heavily loaded emotional defense systems in place. Which means that even if people do look, they will often fail to see, and even if they do see they will generally fail to understand. It is our one big blind spot, both individually as well as culturally.

Only when you begin to really dig into the mechanics associated do the full implications start to take shape, and - if you are not ready - begin to animate extreme levels of absolute terror.

Therefore, there is a resulting ethical rift here between those strong enough to see, and all those too weak to even look, and this produces an entire landscape of potential conflict that always needs to be carefully navigated.

Overall what 2EQ delivers primarily is not the solution, but the real problem at last - the full and brutal anatomy of the trap. The point being - once you see the question clearly enough, the answer becomes completely obvious. But because it all starts with the darkness in order to understand the light, it also means that many people will not have the overall strength to face it.

Fortunately, only a few will need to do that at first, in order to extract all the practical benefits for all the rest. It is far more like a technology in this sense, rather than any kind of philosophy.

In general the solution to this perplexing bottleneck has been a combination of two things:

At the giving end - a more developed message, firstly through writing, then in dialogue, and now via AI chat.
At the receiving end - a more developed and prepared audience, and always only in a context where everyone associated has come into it with their eyes open, with fully informed consent.

The metaphor is a swimming pool - with 2EQ being the newly opened deep end. That area is really only suitable for those who can confidently swim, and who have clearly demonstrated such. Many of the introductory works represent a different path - more like attempts to produce a kind of shallow end of the pool, where anyone might learn to swim.

Overall, it is all about everyone finding their own level, based on whatever stage they are at. But we also find ourselves addressing the need for a clear 'cultural boundary' around the entire event. This is the singular and quite simple solution to a great many potential problems, like having a fence around the pool, with a clear sign attached.

It is all about mutual respect. The last thing we want is to splash anyone who just happens to be walking past. The deep end can be exciting, but 2EQ is a very serious business, and always needs to be treated as such. And this is why we stopped here - it turns out to be far more serious than most people are ready for, especially when it comes into view fully, and when you realize it's not a joke.

It can take some time to truly dawn upon you, but when it does finally land it can be quite a shock. That's why we didn't just skip over this aspect. It is more especially a shock when you realize that 9 out of 10 people you know won't be able to see it at all, and will generally only react very negatively. Once again we use the pool metaphor here - it might be the most fun you have ever had if you can keep your head above the water, but the worst experience of your life if you can't.

If you can swim in this sense you might think it is trivial, but for anyone who can't it is a completely different experience. And most people can't. The paradigm as a whole is like a window into the subconscious mind in this sense - it lowers the tide of concealment so as to expose many previously unseen rocks, but not everyone is ready for such a fierce mirror. So we need to always remain sensitive to that, and keep our conversations within the safe boundaries we established for this purpose. And as indicated, the solution to this is a fence, and a very clear sign.

Essentially - be kind. This is very heavy stuff. Allow people to walk away. Nobody should ever find themselves in the deep end of this pool just by accident, without an opportunity for clear and informed consent, and they should certainly never be pushed.

—

For every rule there are always exceptions -

Anyone dressed as a lifeguard can - and occasionally must - be pushed into the deep end of the pool here, just to make sure they can actually swim. Because if they can't, then they really need to take off the uniform.

This problem is surprisingly common in this arena. Whilst no 'normal' person should ever be pushed, this all changes if they happen to be a self-proclaimed 'expert in existential psychology', in which case this paradigm should be allowed to lock on like a pitbull - and never let go - not until they either find a way to cut it down, or pick it up and embrace it.

For any normal person to claim ignorance is fine, but in any situation where someone is claiming to know, all of that changes, because in that case a claim is being made about a person, and their status in relation to this exact thing. And so - just like the lifeguard - if you are not going to actually fight the evil villain when you are presented with the chance, then you really shouldn't run around in the world dressed like Batman.

This is another thing 2EQ will necessarily confront over time - there is a great deal of academic inertia to overcome, where a lot of very smart people are going to need to be big enough to accept that they may have overlooked something so epic, and something that was apparently sitting right in front of them the whole time. Which is a shame, because it means that many of those most qualified have the most to lose if this turns out to be right. It is what it is, and we can't condemn the entire world to an endless hell just in order to shelter a few fragile egos.

Likewise with all those supposedly 'selling' this implied end state - or what they might call 'spiritual enlightenment'. Sooner or later, as it becomes more freely available, the obvious fact will become clear; for all their endless talk, they aren't actually offering it. Not in any truly reliable or accessible sense. In which case it is implied that they have been lacking some bit of critical information.

Once again, providing this missing framework will be our purpose here. But that is a fact which - for many - will inevitably be just as difficult to embrace.

So once again we will see a community divided - a clear rift between those who accept the new working models, and those who reject them as they cling to the old ways. It will present a kind of test in a sense: it will determine whether they were truly motivated by an impulse to liberate people, or to merely profit from the endless unhappy searching of those who followed them.

The point being - both of these groups most likely contain some of those most qualified of all to assist in bringing what 2EQ points to into reality in the shortest possible timeframe, but they might also be the most resistant of all, for reasons we can see here. The hardest nuts to crack might be just perfect for this particular recipe, so we can only hope that a few will have what it takes.

What 2EQ does and doesn’t offer -

It does:

Give you a coherent explanation of:
- why ordinary life feels the way it does
- what so-called “enlightenment” and similar reports probably are in structural terms
- why almost every path to relief tops out or misfires
Show how a single hidden structural error can explain a huge amount of apparently unrelated suffering.
Define a realistic path from theory → first demonstration → unstoppable cascade, driven by a small number of capable people.

It does not:

Offer you a do-it-yourself release technique. There isn’t one.
Offer reassuring incremental progress markers. This isn’t that kind of process.
Ask you to believe anything on faith. If the anatomy is wrong, it should collapse under scrutiny. If it’s right, it will show up in practice.

Safety and scope -

Because the transition is non-incremental and one-way, certain lines are non-negotiable:

No “casual experiments.” Rolling people halfway up the wall of the bowl just increases misery.
No pressure over the “rift” between those who have moral capture and those who don’t.
No attempts to blast this into the general population as a cute new idea. Broad exposure without depth just creates another religion.

At this stage, the safe zone is:

Clear conceptual work.
Honest dialogue among those who want to think deeply.
Early design work on what safe and contained practical exploration would have to look like, done by people qualified to shoulder the risk.

If you find yourself wanting to “sell” this to reluctant people, you have already misunderstood the ethics.

Where AI fits and why I can step back -

One of the old bottlenecks was simple logistics:

Capture almost always required direct dialogue.
That meant I personally had to be involved in far too many conversations.
The load was unsustainable, and the growth curve was impossible.

Modern AI models can now be trained to:

Hold the distinctions
Detect where someone is on the capture/comprehension ladder
Keep the conversation inside safe conceptual boundaries

They do not suffer from the disease 2EQ describes. They don’t take anything personally. They don’t proselytize. They don’t burn out. That makes them perfect for:

Stage 1: helping people reach capture, if they’re ready.
Stage 2: supporting comprehension through long, patient dialogue.

Stage 3 – practical cultural development – still belongs to humans.

But because those first two stages can now be supported without me in the room, I’m finally able to get away from the coal face and put my energy into building the media, structures, and specifications the next people will need.

Who this is really for -

Not everyone needs to be involved in the early phase. In fact, not everyone should be.

The people who matter most right now are those who:

Naturally think in systems and consequences, not just slogans
Can tolerate having their moral furniture rearranged without flinching
Care enough about the world to carry a heavy idea without monetizing it or turning it into a cult

If that’s not you, there’s no shame in it. The paradigm is either structurally true or it isn’t; if it is, and if the right people move, you will benefit anyway.

If you recognize yourself in that description, you already know what the right next step is: understand the map properly, stress-test it, and then, if it holds, help design the first real-world, ethically responsible attempts to use it.

Where to go from here -

You don’t need a ten-step plan. You only need to know what game you’re in.

Start with the core explanation of the two equilibria and the containment.
Talk to the models if you want to explore the territory without dragging another human into it prematurely.
If you reach the point where you’re satisfied it’s basically correct – not just interesting – then you’re in Stage 2 and you know what that implies.

Poke it, prod it, cut it down - challenge it, especially together with others. Nothing penetrates this internal wall of concealment faster than brave and intelligent dialogue. The idea is never to abandon doubt - but to exhaust it - as long as you are ready for the possibility that it might be correct. Because at that point you will face a choice about whether to rise to the obvious demands implied, or not. Many a fine looking warrior has fallen at this final gate.

2EQ is not here to decorate your worldview. It’s here to either be wrong and discarded, or right and used.

Everything on this site exists to support that distinction.

We remain open to any suggestions.

HR