Start Here.

HR

WELCOME TO 2EQ

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.

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.
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, suddenly a drive emerges; 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. I also paid the personal price for doing that in a world that doesn’t yet know what it’s looking at. 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.

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 overcome -

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 solved - 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 defining '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.
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 defence systems in place. Which means that even if they 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.

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. 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 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. It is all about everyone finding their own level, based on whatever stage they are at.

Overall, we also find ourselves addressing the need for a clear 'cultural boundary'. This is the singular and quite simple solution to a great many problems, like having a fence around the pool, with a clear sign attached. It is all about respect. The last thing we would ever want is for anyone to find themselves in the deep end just by accident. And we also don't want to splash anyone who happened to just be walking past. The deep end can be very exciting, but 2EQ is a 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 realise it's not a joke. It can be quite a shock.

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 out of the way 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 suggestions.

HR