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 see the 2EQ Facebook Group, where a couple of our more advanced members will be answering questions directly, as they prepare to offer guided tours of the paradigm. Or you can simply skip all of that and 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. This is the key to 2EQ: A critical insight at that moment, to snuff out the pilot flame, and end the perpetual inferno. 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 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 possibility really lands at an emotional level, 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 has that approach ever worked, in the entire history of human civilization? Has there ever been a single reliable, repeatable, and accessible framework that actually delivered the goods being sold? Even once? No. The track record of that arrangement is disastrous, and there are many reasons apart from the main reason - which is that the essential anatomy has been missing: 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. All of that is just stuff that people suck on in the absence of real food. And 2EQ is designed to kill that pattern on sight. So I am essentially banned from any direct participation at that level. It is a strange situation. 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 went there so that you would never need to, but this also explains the current transition, and my necessary exit. 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. Many conversations and deeper explorations are still taking place, but only ever in private now, and only ever with people who have very clearly demonstrated sufficient interest and ability - if only because all else has been discovered to be futile. The point now is that you can start your own conversations, and your own explorations. 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, but 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 cost 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 - along with any media you may find posted here - is the streamlined version after a couple of decades of collision with reality. Nothing in the archives is disowned necessarily, but it does require context now, and a good filter. They are often just unedited manuscripts, or letters to a friend. You may still find some big gold nuggets in that mountain of dirt, but you will certainly need to dig for it, unlike the newer stuff. So that's certainly not where I’d send a new person first, if only because those older resources belong to paths that have now largely been superseded by more recent developments. A central dilemma to carefully navigate - There is a single knot at the heart of 2EQ that’s worth flagging clearly. If it’s handled well, it opens the way for a very dramatic process of individual and collective change. If it’s handled badly, it poisons everything. You can think of it as two poles of the same battery, two opposing energies that can certainly cause many sparks if ever they come into contact directly: A. The scale of the release The release event 2EQ points to—especially when extended into the collective—is ethically enormous. If the underlying anatomy is right, then: a single, concealed structural problem exists, it can be removed, and a relatively small upstream “ignition” by a few people can trigger a cascading downstream relief for everyone. Once you really see that, the moral weight is hard to overstate. It shines like an ethical supernova. If you’re ready for it, digging into the mechanics tends to generate a very stark, very clean sort of excitement. The result can be a natural enthusiasm, and a tendency to want to shout it in the streets, so to speak. But this impulse really needs to be channeled into more productive modes of forward movement, especially once you see the other polarity, and how pointless it can be to directly confront it. B. The nature of the obstacle The thing that gets released is itself a concealment process. That means: this is exactly the one place the system is least willing to look, there is a built-in barrier to awareness in this direction, often including a kind of cognitive erosion, and even when people do look, they’ll tend to not see, or see and not understand. Individually and culturally, it’s our blind spot. If you’re not ready for it, digging into the same mechanics tends to generate terror, not excitement. So we need to leave all those who clearly don't qualify in peace, and not only because they would have little to offer it, but because the only thing you will generally receive is a great deal of unconscious hostility. The deep end is fun, but only if you can swim. So we end up with an ethical rift between those strong enough to see it clearly and those who genuinely can’t look. That doesn’t make anyone “better” or “worse,” but it does set up a landscape that has to be navigated carefully. Here we see the issue in a nutshell: The primary gift of 2EQ is not the “solution” it points to so clearly, but the real problem at last - the full, blunt anatomy of the trap. Once you see the question clearly enough, the answer becomes obvious. But because the path to insight necessarily runs straight through the darkest territory, many people simply won’t have the strength or interest to face it. And yet, as we indicated above - only a few need to do that work at first in order to extract the practical technology that can later benefit everyone else. In practice, this bottleneck has always been handled by two things: On the giving side: a more developed message—first through writing, then direct dialogue, and now via AI chat. On the receiving side: a more prepared audience, entering only with their eyes open and with fully informed consent. The pool metaphor is still the cleanest way to think about it: 2EQ is the deep end. It is meant for people who can already swim. Some earlier works tried to build a shallow end where people could learn, but the deep end still needs a fence and a sign. The rule is simple: don’t splash strangers. Don’t drag bystanders in. This is a fierce mirror, and it is heavier than most people assume at first. Basically - be kind. Nobody should ever find themselves in the deep end by accident, and should certainly ever be pushed. Anyone who wants to walk away should be free to do so without penalty. For every rule there are always exceptions - The “never push” rule applies to ordinary people, but it does not apply to those who have voluntarily put on a uniform. If you’re standing beside the deep end dressed as a lifeguard, at some point someone is allowed to ask whether you can actually swim. And if you can’t, then you really need to take the uniform off. That’s the position for: self-proclaimed experts in existential psychology, people who claim to be mapping this exact territory academically, and those making a living selling “enlightenment” or similar outcomes. For anyone ordinary, ignorance is fine. But for anyone publicly claiming expertise in this domain, it’s different, because in that case the claim is about their status relative to the very thing 2EQ is describing. There, the paradigm has every right to lock on like a pitbull and never let go, not until they either cut it down or pick it up. This creates obvious friction in those areas. Many of the most “qualified” people in the existing landscape - academics and spiritual authorities - also have the most to lose if 2EQ is broadly correct. It implies they’ve been sitting right on top of the treasure, staring straight at it in a sense, and yet somehow missed it. That is always going to be a hard pill to swallow, but we also can’t leave the world trapped in an avoidable hell just to protect a few fragile egos. There is considerable cultural inertia to overcome, both in academia - where we see attempts to map out the problem - as well as in more spiritual contexts - where the solution is pointed at. But it is unavoidable - if what 2EQ proposes is broadly correct, then all of that can only be seen as failure. And not in any partial or incremental sense, but in absolute and singular terms. The outcome suggested is unequivocal - like an explosive threshold - which means you either achieve it, or you don't. And likewise with whatever map you may have drawn - if it doesn't lead you very reliably to that singular practical destination, then it is wrong. Flatly wrong. There are no shades of grey. If this release potential can be both understood and reliably achieved under the right circumstances - as 2EQ proposes - then both of these shortfalls are a clean fail. Therefore, like walking in on a bunch of 'safe crackers' with the key in your hand - they either need to demonstrate that they can actually open that great vault door, or step out of the way. The only other option would be to join the team, but that's unlikely at best. The irony is that both groups probably contain some of the best candidates of all to help bring 2EQ into practice fast: people already steeped in the problem, with skills, reach, and infrastructure. But they may also be the hardest nuts to crack, for reasons we see here. Therefore, how such people respond will always be a test of motive. If liberation was really the point all along, they’ll adapt, integrate, and help. But if it was mostly about status, income, or personal identity, they’ll be a lot more likely to resist. Either way, the work goes on, and the train can't be delayed just because a few people have decided to have a picnic on the tracks. Which means that, sooner or later, those people will need to decide whether they are going to be on this train, or under it. 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 fine looking warriors have 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