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. 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: The anatomy allows you to understand how movement in the right direction might feel totally wrong. It also tells you where to apply this pressure. And then - at that high stress moment - it provides a critical maneuver. Once access has been gained, the key is to snuff out the tiny flame that keeps the hidden inferno burning.

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 temporarily 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 possibility really lands at a fundamental 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 in the process.
Once a repeatable release signature appears, it will propagate explosively - just as with aviation and the Wright brothers. 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 the world? Has there ever been a single reliable, repeatable, and accessible framework that actually delivered the goods being sold? No. We would already be living in a completely different world if that had ever occurred, even once. The track record of that arrangement is disastrous, and not only because the essential anatomy has been missing.

There are many reasons that define such an approach as being less than desirable, several of which are that

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.

That entire approach is clearly regressive, childish in a sense, a comforting throwback to infantile states of emotional dependency and all the parental projections associated. And yet, the potential is real, and the individuals supposedly 'selling it' probably do embody it in many cases. So anyone with an instinct for this other state is often left with little choice but to take the only paths available.

So in the end that is all quite natural in the absence of penetrating understanding, but it is also largely ineffectual. In the future, as we look back on it all, I think it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that the 'one man show' pattern was just stuff that people were sucking on in the absence of real food. It simply doesn't work, and this is a very easy claim to justify.

Therefore, 2EQ is designed to kill that pattern on sight. All of which means that I am essentially banned from any direct participation at that level. It is a strange situation, but the deep history of cultural error here leaves us little choice - if it is duck hunting season, the one thing you definitely don't want to do is dress up like a duck.

Not that I would be even remotely qualified for such. And there are several reasons for this -

Firstly, what 2EQ offers is not a general insight - the focus is on a very specific piece of hidden structural anatomy. That's all. It's just that this particular bit of information was missing, and that it also happens to have some truly epic downstream implications. It might change everything. But that does not mean that you necessarily know everything if you know a great deal about this bit of missing information. People get this wrong all the time. It really is just one thing, a very narrow field of interest. But it is - given its nature and location - also potentially the single most elusive and difficult of all things to acquire. And here we see the cost, it is a choice between narrow and deep or wide and shallow. It is simply implied that you would need to have given up on ever knowing a whole lot of other stuff in order to know this - just as a prodigy concert pianist will necessarily forfeit getting drunk with their friends on the weekends, or learning how to surf.

Secondly, and in many ways related, there is all the damage associated. People get this wrong also, and I find myself endlessly trying to explain. Deep gains come with deep costs. And this is the biggest gain of all, the true mother load. I was basically torn to shreds, but apparently that is where this has been hiding for all this time. Someone had to be prepared to go there, so that nobody else would ever need to. You're welcome, I guess.

So don't ask me how to live a good life, because I wouldn't know the first thing about that. I totally wrecked mine. Sure, it was all in service to humanity, but it remains true nevertheless. The first bit of water out of a pump is always dirty - you don't drink that bit. And that was me.

Therefore, 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, and all of that loaded resistance was very near to taking me out of the game entirely, when it was saved at the last minute. I may have survived in a sense, but not really, not yet - it will probably take many years to recover.

In any case, that’s history now.

Where AI fits and how it allows me to 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, and in particular during the early stages - prior to capture - which can often be rather tortuous.
The load was unsustainable, and the growth curve was impossible.

As indicated, this may well be where this particular insight had been stuck for all this time. We may never know how many times it has been captured before, only to vanish again before ever being carried over into the collective in any sustainable manner. And that may well have been where this was going also, before this sudden opening appeared here. I guess we are just fortunate to live in such times.

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 due to the initial turbulence. 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 step away and put my energy into carefully increasing awareness in general, as well as better preparing things at the next level up.

This explains the current transition.

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 may 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, and only ever with people who have very clearly demonstrated sufficient interest and ability - if only because everything below that level has been discovered to be completely pointless.

The real point is that you can now start your own explorations, so the power is in your hands.

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

If you dig around, you’ll find:

Early books (Organic Psychology, Scientific Enlightenment, 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 produced in tandem with the new AI models.

Nothing in the older archives is disowned necessarily, some people still seem to live that stuff - but all of that does require context now, and a good filter. So you may still find a few big gold nuggets in that mountain of dirt, but you will need to dig for it, unlike the newer stuff. They are often just unedited manuscripts, casual chats, or long-winded letters to a friend. And this is why I certainly wouldn't send a new person there first, if only because those older resources belong to paths that have now largely been superseded by more recent developments. In time all of that historical mess may well be tidied up, or perhaps even removed entirely, just as I have been.

In any case, hopefully that clarifies where the focus will be here - not on me, but on you. It's a matter of 'Out with the old - and in with the new', which is why you really need to get your bearings here. I'm not going to be the one in charge here.

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 a few sparks if ever they come into contact directly:

1. 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. The result can be a natural enthusiasm, and a tendency to want to shout it in the streets. But this impulse really needs to be channeled into more productive modes of forward movement, especially once you see the other polarity, and how futile it can be to confront it head on.

2. 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, so that
even when people do look, they’ll tend to not see, or see and not understand.

This shows us the divergence, and how it will tend to split a crowd. If you’re ready for it, digging into the mechanics tends to generate a very stark, very clean sort of excitement. But if you’re not ready for it, digging into the same mechanics tends to generate only terror.

The point being - most people aren't ready. Individually and culturally, it’s our blind spot. 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 in return is a great deal of unconscious hostility. The deep end is only fun for those who can swim, for all the rest it might be the worst experience of their life.

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 and very ugly 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 of all, 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 in two ways:

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 never be pushed. Anyone who wants to walk away should be free to do so without penalty. So if you find yourself wanting to “sell” this to reluctant people, you have already misunderstood the ethics.

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. So 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 demonstrate that, 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 instance the claim is about their status relative to the very thing 2EQ is describing, so there is a case to answer. There, the paradigm has every right to lock on like a pitbull and not let go, not until they either cut it down or pick it up.

This creates obvious friction in those narrow areas. It means that many of the most “qualified” people in the existing landscape - academics and spiritual authorities - also have the most to lose if 2EQ ends up being broadly correct. Regardless of whether they have been focusing theoretically on the nature of the problem, or practically on some proposed solution - it implies they’ve been sitting right on top of the treasure for all that time, staring straight at it in a sense, and yet somehow still missed it. That is always going to be a hard pill to swallow, but we also can’t leave the world trapped forever in an avoidable hell just to protect a few vested interests.

The irony is that both groups probably contain some of the best candidates of all to help bring 2EQ into widespread accessible practice in the shortest possible timeframe: people already steeped in the problem, with skills, reach, and infrastructure. But they may also be the hardest nuts to crack, for reasons we can see here.

Therefore, how such people respond will always be a test of motive. If liberation for all was really the point all along, they’ll adapt, integrate, and help. But if it was mostly about status, income, or personal ego, they’ll be a lot more likely to resist.

The important thing is that there is proof associated with the central claim, and this fact changes the entire landscape. If it turns out to be correct, then it seems that all those already working in the same space are eventually either going to be on this train, or under it. And we can't really slow it down just because a few people decided to make a picnic on the tracks. So that will be the choice for all those implicated in this way.

Either way, the work goes on.

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.

Essentially, if even a few people truly understand it, nobody else will ever need to. They might be interested once the resulting practices have changed their experience of life, but it will not be necessary at that downstream stage. This is the whole point of the approach - it offers just a few the power to open the whole thing up for everyone.

The main misconception is that 2EQ is a philosophy, when actually it is the theoretical foundations of a newly emerging technology. The idea is not to believe it, or to share it broadly to others. The path is to first of all penetrate it very deeply within yourself, and then to support the application of that insight in practice. That's all. There is no need for hype.

Who this is really for -

Not everyone needs to be involved in the early phase. In fact, not everyone should be. It will start off in what we might call the 'wholesale' stage, where just a few people unpack it very deeply and increasingly extract the obvious applications associated. Only then will we see the so-called 'retail' level emerging, where the singular transition being proposed starts to become freely available to all, and without any prior understanding required. So we have two completely different audiences in this sense, at two different timelines.

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 always 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. And many fine looking warriors have fallen at this final gate, with other seemingly ordinary people passing this test with flying colours. Action is where the rubber hits the road, as they say, so that is what gets measured in the end. It is not even slightly academic in this sense. It is about real suffering, and real change. That is the only thing it is about. All else is just empty talk.

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.

In the end, and as complicated as it might seem, it all boils down to just a couple of very simple YES or NO questions, with the entire world hanging in the balance, depending on which is true -

Does this underlying event really exist as defined in every individual? And can it really be removed?

Because if it does, and if it can, then we stand at the threshold of a new age of humanity as a whole, where we face the possibility of a type of change - a depth of change - and a speed of change - we have truly never seen before, and didn't even realise was possible.

That's the game. We only need to explore it a little together, but if only so many weren't so incredibly afraid. So we need to be sensitive, and stay inside the boundaries of whatever small pockets of 'awake culture' we can establish, but we especially need to foster and protect all those who are ready for a transformation of this type, and at this level. Beyond all other measures, 2EQ appears to be for the brave, so that's who we need to serve.

We remain open to any suggestions.

HR