Learning to Swim Between Worlds

A paradigm is the largely invisible world-model through which experience becomes intelligible. It organizes a person’s understanding of self, other people, causality, value, suffering, possibility, responsibility, love, success, failure, health, spirituality, knowledge and reality. Its categories influence what enters awareness, which explanations appear plausible, what questions become available and which possibilities can be conceived. Most people begin personal development from inside a paradigm whose limits remain imperceptible to them. Its conclusions present themselves as reality rather than as products of a particular reality-model, so problems appear to exist wholly in the world, in circumstances or in the person, even where the prevailing paradigm has generated, intensified or rendered those problems insoluble.

Crisis often provides the first indication that this organisation of reality is no longer adequate. Relationship breakdown, recurring failure, anxiety, exhaustion, addiction, depression, identity conflict or loss of meaning may bring a person to therapy, mentorship, spiritual practice, self-help or some other developmental undertaking. The initial search usually concerns a better solution within the existing structure: more confidence, stronger boundaries, greater discipline, less anxiety, improved communication, a more suitable partner or a clearer direction. Useful changes occur at this level, but a more radical inquiry begins when attention turns toward the conditions producing the problem:

What must I believe, assume, identify with, ignore or misunderstand for this particular form of difficulty to keep arising?

The object of inquiry has shifted from the contents of consciousness to the architecture through which those contents are generated and interpreted.

The caves represent successive architectures of understanding. What once appeared to be an intrinsic identity may disclose itself as a set of adaptations learned in childhood. The account of childhood may later be recognized as a construction shaped by family mythology, attachment, temperament, culture and the interpretive capacities available to a child. The psychological concepts used to interpret these discoveries may then become visible as models with their own assumptions and exclusions, after which biological, developmental, social, existential, philosophical, symbolic and spiritual perspectives may reorganize the same material again. Movement between caves involves incorporation and reorganization: a sufficiently encompassing paradigm preserves what an earlier one perceived while revealing relationships, causes and possibilities that remained inaccessible within it.

A belief about an event may first be recognized as an interpretation. The psychological structure producing that interpretation may then become apparent, followed by the developmental history that formed the structure, the cultural paradigm that supplied its concepts, and the deeper assumptions about selfhood, agency and reality presupposed by that culture. Identity undergoes the same movement. “I am unsuccessful” becomes “I repeatedly behave in ways that produce these outcomes”; those behaviors are then seen as organized around particular fears and predictions; those predictions are recognized as adaptations to an earlier environment; and what had been experienced as an intrinsic property of the self is eventually understood as an inherited predictive model. Each transition alters the available field of action because the player is no longer moving the same pieces around the same board.

Self-knowledge therefore exceeds accurate self-description. Statements beginning with “I am”, “people are”, “life is”, “the world works like this”, “this always happens”, “I need”, “I cannot”, “I should” or “this means” arise within paradigmatic structures. Some are reliable, some locally useful, some obsolete adaptations, inherited assumptions or category errors, and others are conclusions reached by earlier versions of the person under conditions that no longer exist. Development progressively differentiates reality from the models through which reality has been encountered.

An illuminating framework may produce the first decisive release from an inherited paradigm. Therapy, Jung, Buddhism, trauma theory, attachment theory, psychedelics, neuroscience, non-duality, Christianity, Stoicism, coaching or somatics can disclose a world that the preceding framework could not explain. The relief of this discovery encourages identification with the new paradigm, and its explanatory power may be mistaken for finality. Trauma then explains everything; attachment, ego, nervous-system regulation, capitalism, childhood, consciousness or spirituality becomes the governing explanation for the whole of experience. Liberation from one paradigm establishes the possibility of transcendence, but confers no final status on the paradigm into which the person has emerged.

The birth canal names the instability of transition. Deep paradigmatic change reorganizes identity, motivation, value and meaning. Former certainties become questionable, dismissed possibilities become conceivable, relationships appear differently, earlier achievements change significance and old motivations lose their force before new forms of orientation have become dependable. The player may perceive the inadequacy of the previous paradigm without yet possessing the integration required to inhabit the emerging one. This liminal condition is easily mistaken for failure, illness, enlightenment or arrival, when it may be the difficult period in which a larger model is being metabolized.

The Sacred Game approaches each difficulty at two levels: as an event occurring within a paradigm and as information about the paradigm organizing the event. Money, relationships, work, health, emotion, responsibility and consequence retain their immediate reality, while also becoming occasions for examining the perceptual and interpretive machinery through which they are encountered. What am I seeing from here, and what remains unavailable from this position? Which assumptions make my interpretation appear inevitable? What distinction is absent? What would need to become intelligible for the situation to look fundamentally different? What does a more encompassing paradigm preserve from the present one, and what might it reveal that the present one cannot?

Personal development, viewed in this way, concerns more than repairing a defective version of the existing self. It increases degrees of freedom by increasing reality-contact. Compulsory reactions become choices, identities become instruments rather than prisons, contradictions disclose missing distinctions, suffering carries information and situations experienced as fixed reveal additional dimensions of possible action. “Awakening all the way up” describes an orientation toward continued paradigmatic development in which every escape from a cave reveals that the current horizon may also be partial. A transcending paradigm earns its place by explaining more while distorting less, preserving what was valid in prior understandings, resolving contradictions that remained insoluble within them, strengthening predictive and interpretive coherence and expanding the capacity for skilful participation in reality.

Bipolarity and the Architecture of Reality

Bipolar experience involves periods in which the regulatory relationships among mood, energy, attention, salience, association, inhibition, sleep and meaning become unusually unstable. These changes affect the experienced structure of reality as well as the intensity of emotion. During expansive states, associations become unusually available, coincidences acquire exceptional salience, symbols gather density and force, boundaries between domains of thought loosen and large integrative models form at extraordinary speed. The world may appear charged with correspondence, intention and disclosure.

Some of the material arising in this condition may be psychologically significant, creatively generative or genuinely insightful. At the same time, the processes used to test, rank and discard interpretations are being altered, so significance may be generated faster than significance can be discriminated. This is a condition of impaired epistemic modulation. Emerging signals may exceed the prevailing paradigmatic structure, producing experiences for which the inherited worldview has no adequate category or language. The person is confronted with an abundance of association and meaning while the mechanisms responsible for differentiating those meanings are becoming less reliable.

Coherence in the context of human consciousness and psyche provides the felt continuity by which perception, memory, identity, causality and shared reality remain sufficiently aligned. Its disruption is experienced as a disturbance in reality itself. Psychotic mania represents an extreme failure of demodulation in which several distinct movements collapse into one another:

1. Something occurred.

2. I noticed a pattern.

3. The pattern evoked meaning.

4. The meaning suggested an interpretation.

5. The interpretation describes external reality.

6. The interpretation demands belief or action.

The loss of separation among these movements allows metaphor to harden into ontology, correspondence into causation, intuition into certainty, archetypal material into literal instruction, and symbolic coherence into an exhaustive account of external reality. An unusual association does not constitute psychosis; the decisive issue lies in the authority granted to the interpretation and the erosion of the distinctions by which it might otherwise be examined.

Demodulation allows several registers of experience to remain available at once. An experience may carry psychological meaning without establishing literal truth. A correspondence may deserve attention without establishing causality. An image may possess symbolic force without becoming an external command. An insight may retain value after the certainty surrounding it has subsided. These distinctions preserve significance while preventing the first available interpretation from becoming the governing ontology.

Depression and Paradigmatic Contraction

The same machinery moves toward contraction during depression. Possibility, connection, significance and agency diminish; negative interpretations acquire disproportionate certainty; available futures collapse; and the present condition appears permanent and exhaustive. “Nothing can change” arrives as a description of existence rather than as a proposition generated within a contracting state. The depressive paradigm becomes phenomenologically indistinguishable from reality.

Bipolarity makes the state-dependence of possible worlds unusually visible. One state discloses almost unlimited connection and possibility, another discloses almost none, and euthymic consciousness supplies a different calibration again. These states do not form a simple vertical hierarchy. Expanded association may disclose relations excluded by ordinary consciousness while reducing the reliability with which those relations are interpreted. Depressive contraction may expose genuine suffering or limitation while presenting it as universal, permanent and complete. Access to information and the reliability of interpretation vary independently; intensity, conviction, meaningfulness and truth-value remain separate variables.

Learning to Swim

Learning to swim involves developing a meta-paradigm capable of remaining available across changes of state. Its central recognition is that my state changes the probability and certainty I assign to meanings, threats, possibilities and explanations. This recognition allows a person to observe their characteristic signatures of acceleration and contraction, to describe experience before deciding what it means, and to keep symbolic truth distinct from literal truth. Important insights can be recorded without requiring immediate action, while consequential interpretations can be tested across time, evidence, dialogue, external corroboration and changes of state before receiving ontological commitment.

A manic insight may feel more real than ordinary reality because salience, confidence and significance have intensified together. The certainty belongs partly to the state through which the insight is apprehended. This need not render the material meaningless, but its meaningfulness does not settle its factual status. Durable demodulation preserves the material while delaying judgment about the register to which it belongs. What survives may prove factual, symbolic, psychological, creative, relational, spiritual or some combination of these, and the appropriate classification may remain unavailable at the moment of greatest intensity. The ordeal lies in sustaining contact with powerful material without submitting to its first interpretation or reducing it to noise.

Initiation and Psychic Refactoring

Initiation prepares the player for a refactoring of cognitive and psychic orientation. Exposure to supravenient paradigms expands the range of available interpretations, while a corresponding language upgrade supplies the distinctions necessary to move among them. The intended result is an architecture capable of receiving overwhelming experience without being captured by its first apparent meaning.

Such an architecture distinguishes perception from interpretation, association from evidence, symbol from external object, metaphor from ontology, correspondence from causation, intuition from instruction, archetypal material from literal history, memory from reconstruction, psychological truth from factual assertion, intensity from validity, revelation from certainty and significance from command. Experiences that cannot be differentiated are difficult to integrate. Without adequate distinctions, the person is left with crude alternatives: the experience is treated as meaningless pathology or absolute revelation, to be rejected completely or obeyed completely.

A higher-order paradigm opens more possibilities than either response. Unusual psychic material can retain meaning without immediately acquiring factual, imperative or cosmological authority. The paradigm offers liberation from an inadequate worldview and containment for what emerges during its dissolution. This dual capacity matters because liberation without containment leaves the person exposed to undifferentiated meaning, while containment without liberation merely reinstates the limits that the psyche may already be struggling to exceed.

The mythic register has particular value here. The hero’s journey, descent, ordeal, dismemberment, death, rebirth and return provide forms through which psychic reorganization can become intelligible. They locate disruptive experience within a developmental field without functioning as literal explanations of events. Psychic disintegration can otherwise appear wholly arbitrary, whereas initiatory language places it within a pattern of departure, destabilization, confrontation, transformation and return. The person gains a way of understanding why the former world no longer holds, why the intermediate state feels dangerous and unbounded, and why a return to shared reality requires integration rather than simple reversal.

Initiation preparation develops the capacities needed when ordinary coherence becomes unstable: epistemic discrimination, symbolic literacy, tolerance of ambiguity, familiarity with altered states, recognition of state-dependent certainty, grounding in shared reality, psychological self-knowledge and the ability to hold multiple interpretations without prematurely collapsing them into one. Together, these capacities form an inner vessel. They may not prevent destabilization, but they can profoundly alter the person’s relationship with destabilizing material.

Prolonged Psychosis and the Collapse of Coherence

Prolonged psychosis can be understood as the collapse of an established coherence before a sufficiently stable replacement coherence has formed. The inherited collective mythos, identity structure and explanatory world no longer feel credible or inhabitable, yet no adequately differentiated higher-order framework is available to receive what is emerging. Under conditions of hyperarousal, disrupted sleep and heightened salience, the mind must interpret an enormous volume of internally and externally generated material while its mechanisms for ranking evidence, containing association and correcting interpretation have weakened.

Imagination becomes epistemically consequential within this condition. Fear generates hypotheses, hypotheses recruit confirming perceptions, coincidences acquire agency, symbolic material becomes literalized, ambiguity becomes threat and hypervigilance supplies further evidence to the developing world-model. The resulting system may achieve strong internal coherence while moving progressively away from shared reality. Each interpretation produces the conditions for its own confirmation: suspicion directs attention toward threat, heightened attention discovers further anomalies, and those anomalies intensify suspicion. The psychotic ontology becomes self-reinforcing.

The prevailing clinical paradigm usually approaches this process through the language of symptoms, dysfunction and correction. That language captures important features of the condition, but may fail to address the experiencer’s sense of paradigmatic rupture. Restoring regulation does not itself explain what disintegrated, what the experience meant, which elements remain psychically consequential or how they might be integrated into a viable orientation toward reality. An exclusively corrective approach may attempt to reinstall the previous worldview without examining whether that worldview had already become psychologically untenable.

The subconscious or psyche may be rejecting premises, identities and collective myths that no longer provide adequate coherence. The rupture produced by that rejection does not guarantee movement toward a superior paradigm, because the rejection of an inadequate order does not itself produce an adequate replacement. This is the initiatory problem: the person has departed from the prevailing world but has not acquired a navigable relationship with what lies beyond it. Untrained, hyper-aroused and exposed to an unbounded field of association, they become vulnerable to fear colonizing perception, imagination assuming sovereignty and psychic material arriving without differentiation. The emerging world possesses enormous meaning but insufficient modulation.

Prolonged psychosis, in this account, is an unbounded meaning-making system attempting to restore coherence while deprived of reliable demodulation. Responding to it requires more than affirming or denying its contents. The person needs a larger interpretive container, sufficient conceptual range to entertain several meanings, symbolic literacy to resist premature literalization, epistemic discipline to delay certainty, self-knowledge to recognize the effects of fear and state, and continued connection with shared reality through which emerging material can be translated into communicable form. Imagination can then become material for interpretation rather than an involuntary sovereign over reality.

Liberation and Containment

A higher-order paradigm permits an inherited worldview to be exceeded while supplying the distinctions required to prevent transcendence from collapsing into psychotic certainty. Without liberation, the person is forced back into a reality-model that may no longer be adequate; without containment, every new association risks becoming revelation, command or cosmological fact. Demodulation holds these movements together by protecting neither the old paradigm nor the new interpretation from scrutiny. Experience remains alive while its meaning is refined.

The Sacred Game prepares the player to travel between caves without mistaking every newly illuminated chamber for the Final level of truth or reality instead of another level of an Infinite Golden Apex. Its discipline lies in preserving openness without surrendering discrimination, receiving meaning without becoming ruled by it, and passing through the dissolution of coherence without confusing dissolution itself with transcendence. The required orientation is neither permanent certainty nor permanent skepticism, but the ability to move through changing states of reality-contact without becoming wholly imprisoned by any one of them.

A person who learns to swim between worlds need not deny the ocean, declare every current divine or allow the strongest current to decide where reality ends. They learn to recognize depth, pressure, movement and danger, and acquire the language and capacities required to remain conscious within them. The experience becomes less random and capricious as its patterns become visible, its meanings become differentiable, its dangers become intelligible and its insights become capable of surviving translation into shared reality. What once appeared only as a broken mind can also be understood as a mind struggling to reorganize reality without an adequate map, vessel or language for the crossing.

TL;DR

1. Bipolar, manic and psychotic experiences need not be understood as random failures of a broken brain. They can also be understood as disruptions in the way the mind organises meaning, identity and reality. During mania, associations, salience, confidence and symbolic meaning may intensify faster than they can be discriminated, allowing metaphor to become ontology, correspondence to become causation and insight to become certainty. Depression contracts the same meaning-making system, causing possibility, agency and available futures to disappear until a state-dependent interpretation feels like reality itself.

2. The developmental task is to build a stable meta-paradigm that can operate across these changing states. This involves recognising that intensity, conviction, meaningfulness and truth-value are separate variables; preserving unusual or valuable material without immediately granting it literal or ontological authority; and developing the language to distinguish perception, interpretation, symbol, intuition, evidence and external fact.

3. Initiation and exposure to supravenient paradigms can provide the symbolic literacy, conceptual range and inner containment needed when an inherited worldview begins to disintegrate. Prolonged psychosis can then be understood as an unbounded meaning-making system attempting to restore coherence before a stable replacement coherence has formed. The objective is neither to dismiss the experience as meaningless pathology nor accept it as unquestionable revelation, but to develop sufficient demodulation to receive, differentiate and integrate it.

4. The Sacred Game prepares the player to travel between paradigms without mistaking every newly illuminated cave for the Infinite Golden Apex. Learning to swim between worlds means remaining open to meaning without becoming ruled by it, maintaining contact with shared reality without reducing experience to dysfunction, and acquiring a map, vessel and language adequate to the crossing.

The post explains:

- how we create our reality, how paradigms work,

- how to understand the present moment through the lens of ‘systems thinking’,

- how consciousness has a topology we can navigate,

- how to extricate ourselves from the orgy of catharsis, and

- most importantly, what we can do from here.

Capitalism is predicated on the violation of trust. Communism is the foolishness of imagining that will not happen when you force everyone to share and then take away from them the conversation and decisions about what that should mean.

That the social contract is broken, that the peasants are wretched and uneducated is always a failure of ‘the crown’.

Whoever holds power holds the crown, such as it is. How ironic then that in our archetypal language, the nobility of the crown was idealized as gold.

Oh boy we got all of this so confused.

…

In a sense, when looking at the madness of our current moment in the world, I have lived with an enduring sense that I know exactly what’s going on. It’s like when you have a realization, or a psychedelic experience, wherein a perspective of reality is suddenly cast in a scenario that transcends the minutiae and granularity and the signature of the piece is revealed.

Some people can look at an engine, a circuit, a software system, or even a social process and “just see” what is wrong or how it works without tracing each step mechanically. Their mind apprehends the relational topology of the system: how causes, effects, and dependencies interlock. It is akin to, but something decidedly beyond, mere intuition and it is not guessing either. It is more like a direct grasp of coherence across the whole field of whatever is relevant or salient.

In the language of academia and science, let’s say the cognitive neuroscience of predictive processing, we would describe this as a phenomenon whereby our human ability for pattern-recognition becomes suprasensory and transcends conventional diagnosis or linear verification. A cognitive neuroscience nerd would say something like: A suprasensory pattern-recognition event is a meta-perceptual state wherein the generative model of reality becomes phenomenally transparent, producing a direct apprehension of global coherence that is not reducible to discrete sensory channels or stepwise verification.

In plain speak, it is when your mind suddenly grasps the pattern and how things relate or connect, specifically the context they relate and connect, without needing to break it down step by step. Specifically, you’ll know you aren’t deluding yourself when, as you keep observing what happens, the unfolding reality keeps confirming your prediction.

I have had that sense for a few years now. I think it is part and parcel of the way my neurospicy brain is wired for systems thinking and pattern recognition. I just naturally ignore a certain grade of detail, and my brain classifies it as less relevant or noise. And the more I pay attention, and the more the moment unfolds, the more my intuitions are confirmed.

That said, I feel as though in some sense I know exactly what is going on, and I still can’t believe how crazy it is right now and how crazy it is still going to become.

Anyway, here goes:

How We Create Reality

We actually share not-quite-parallel realities in real time on the same physical platform we call the world.

This diagram presents a model of how all human-made systems—politics, religion, business, and others—share a common underlying platform of reality. It describes four stacked layers that map how abstract ideas become realized or emergent.

At the top, the Paradigm Layer represents conceptual or virtual frameworks, the ideas humans invent to make sense of the world. These exist in the collective and individual mind and are entirely constructed, yet we treat them as real.

Below that, the Instance Layer is the emergent level where those paradigms are realized as organized systems or institutions, such as governments, churches, and corporations. The Subscribers Layer in the middle is us, representing people and societies that subscribe to the paradigms, participate in and realize these systems through complicit belief and behavior. We create our reality.

Finally, the Environment and Resources Layer forms the foundation, the physical world of land, oceans, minerals, and ecosystems that sustains all higher layers.

This is exactly the same way to understand systems in business or any other human context, for that matter. Every system coheres around a paradigm, a conceptual layer made of ideas, shared beliefs, strategies, or values. These ideas become instantiated as tangible data, interfaces and applications. The subscribers are the people, employees, customers, and stakeholders who sustain the system through interaction and use. Beneath it all lies the physical platform, the material and energetic foundation of resources, infrastructure, and environment that makes the entire system possible.

The diagram highlights the irony that humans consider the conceptual layer (our ideas and social constructs) to be most real, while the foundational layer, that is, the natural world that actually sustains existence, is treated as secondary or trivial. The entire model invites a reorientation of perspective, reminding us that all human paradigms are emergent patterns nested within a single, shared, physical platform.

We create our reality. No one single person or corporation is to blame, but we are all complicit, and some actors are more complicit than others. Also, some actors have much more agency and influence than others, and it is part of our shared paradigm that this is normal and that we can reliably apply the corrective mechanisms within the flawed paradigm to fix it. And so we turn to politics or economic levers, or we assume we can technologically innovate our way out of a dilemma that was caused by that immature notion. You cannot paint yourself out of a corner.

You cannot fix a fundamentally flawed paradigm within the distorted limits of reasoning by which it was conceived.

Understanding The Game

A paradigm is a mental model or operating context that shapes how we perceive, interpret, and engage with reality. It is sustained by a set of beliefs, but it is something more than that. A paradigm is a conceptual and structural crystalline prism that defines what seems possible or meaningful to us. Paradigms are how human consciousness encodes reason. Paradigms persist through collective subscription and recursive reinforcement, via a continuous feedback loop.

• Step 1: People act according to what they believe is real; those actions produce effects that confirm those beliefs.

• Step 2: Systems, laws, technologies, and rituals embed the paradigm into durable structures, realizing the conceptual into the tangible.

• Step 3: Language, story, and education replicate the paradigm across iterations. We induct and initiate new players into the game.

• Step 4: The paradigm determines what is considered ‘evidence’, and such evidence in turn sustains the paradigm. Evidence is anything we can notice or figure out that seems to show whether an idea, belief, or explanation is true or false, based on the way we are looking at things.

• Step 5: See Step 1

Understanding The Players

Consciousness is arranged like this:

Consciousness, from the first-person perspective at least, is subject to personal polarization and distortion, like a kind of personal tuning. Being social by psyche, we cannot, by default, endure isolation of belief. It’s that we lack the agency to uphold a whole reality on our own, one that serves only ourselves. Not unless we are sociopaths and narcissists. Most of us are not sociopaths and narcissists, but narcissism and sociopathy are the exact nature of our modern social operating system, with its main branches of egocentrism, extractive capitalism and plutocracy.

On the left side of the spectrum is the red-shifted polarity, and on the right side is the blue-shifted polarity of consciousness. In the analogy of consciousness as light, polarization can account for two separate truths co-existing in the same conscious reality simultaneously. This is the actual cause of the phenomenon certain modern spiritual circles call alternative timelines.

Think of a louvre in office blinds, but instead of running horizontally, they run vertically, and instead of being flat strips of aluminium, each louvre is a long vertical prism, whereby, if two people saw the same event unfold, even standing side by side, they would perceive and experience not only from a relative perspective but also from a different prismatic rendering of reality.

The distortion and refraction we each see are not necessarily different. Millions of people can share a paradigm of reality that seems utterly absurd or selective to others.

How come?

Let’s first understand how tribal in-group, out-group thinking occurs. At the foundation of our limbic brain and nervous system lies a tribal firmware, a legacy subsystem wired for survival in environments where threat and scarcity were commonplace. This firmware is at least 200,000 years old and has not had a meaningful update since our ancestors were nomads.

Now, imagine this firmware functioning like prismatic louvres, filters through which light (information) must pass. When threat or incoherence floods the system, these louvres snap into a simplified alignment, filtering out complexity, nuance, and ambiguity. What remains is a sharpened, binary frame: self vs. other, friend vs. foe, us vs. them.

Let’s go back to systems thinking to consider what this means to us. Most of us understand the model of a computer system. The CPU performs logical operations, reasoning, problem-solving and sequencing. Let’s call that our Sanity. In that analogy, let us call our Psyche the motherboard. The motherboard connects all system components: the unconscious, the emotional field, and the archetypal substructures. RAM represents working memory and active attention.

So with that analogy in mind, consider again the scale of chance, the sheer amount of context we have to parse, the level of noise we have to contend with every overwhelmed, overstimulated minute of our waking modern life. What is actually happening in our present moment is that our shared consciousness cannot sustain the rate of change, the interference patterns, and the fractured, incompatible demodulation codecs we are forced to run in parallel. We are trying to resolve reality through the CPU of our sanity, on the motherboard of Psyche, using the limited RAM of our conscious agency. Small wonder people are burning out, freaking out, waking up, prophesying collapse, and goading one another into conflict across fractured lines of reality.

If we could just notice that ‘it is no measure of good health to be well adjusted in a profoundly sick environment’, and admit how sick, angry, frightened, demoralized, depressed, anxious and meaningless we feel at the same time.

If we can sit with anything approaching mature self-preservation, mature self-love or mature self-leadership and if we can just notice that, we can recognize that our modern reality is utterly unacceptable, absurdly unwise and utterly unsustainable. Any one of those three strikes should be sufficient justification to start acting accordingly. We like to blame billionaires and corporations, and they have a lot to be blamed for, but at the end of the day, all their bullshit keeps going because we keep subscribing to it. But simply knowing this doesn’t make it easy to unplug. There are no simple answers here now. We have created absurd complexity and integrated our lives fully with it. None of us can jump across to an alternative reality provider. Nevertheless, our current situation cannot and will not carry on forever.

Welcome to Overtime

The best archetypal term to describe what we are experiencing right now is Sudden Correction.

Something can list or lean, that is, defy natural law for a while, but at some point it hits an inflection point, an event horizon of corrective physics where consequence exerts itself and sudden correction follows. Consequence is the calculus of cause and effect by which the universe enforces coherence and keeps everything within the bounds of necessity.

You cannot defy natural law and belong to Life.

You cannot live outside environmental cadence and limits and belong to Life.

If you really cannot understand what is meant by ‘Life’, then substitute the word success, longevity, legacy, heritage, prosperity or abundance, either of which lands much the same point. To not prioritize such things would be insane.

We are living and upholding and shoring up an insane system. Our modern premise is unsustainable and unwise. Compared to billionaires and corporations, we are disenfranchised. We are held to laws and limits that do not protect us, while the members of the elite class are protected by laws and limits they are not held to. In another sense, we are the enfranchised ones and the animals and other forms of life on this planet are disenfranchised, meaning their opportunities for all those things: success, longevity, legacy, heritage, prosperity or abundance—are all contingent on things they have no agency over, determined by systems we are complicit in.

As far as natural tolerance goes, we would find it unacceptable on the disenfranchised end, so ethically, we cannot find it acceptable on the enfranchised end.

This sick, dominant system is not incentivized to self-correct. The core incentives and weightings are stacked towards more compromise of the agency and enfranchisement of others. Every commons must eventually be privatized and monetized. Monetization is a tax on our pursuit of convenience and enablement without representation. The endgame we are complicit in is utterly dystopian, and we are already crossing the event horizon, on a collision course with consequence.

This is what people are referring to as the Collapse. In mythic terms, it is an apocalypse. Apocalypse means “revealing”, as in the veil of illusion slipping off.

What got us here will not get us there. We cannot fix our failing paradigms with the mindset of the failing paradigms that define their own limits.

We need to envision a future that isn’t painting itself into a troubled corner.

Our current paradigms of economics, politics, religion and social order and our philosophies of business, government and prudence, are incompatible with each other and are therefore incompatible with a brighter future, because they are incompatible with Emergence.

What should we do?

What can we do? is the question. Not much wriggle room is left to us here. As I said before, there isn’t an alternative viable reality to switch to. We haven’t made it yet.

The only bit of advice I would start with is a principle: Don’t be part of the problem. As far as possible, to be part of any solution without perfect wisdom or understanding means at least not exacerbating the current situation.

ONE - Don’t be in such a hurry to tear things down.

Considering how well our default mode of unbridled enthusiasm and unconscious engineering and architecting of our current reality appears from this vantage point, we don’t really want to be tearing down the little sustaining infrastructure we have left.

Every single act of righteousness, retribution and justice became the foundation of future grievances and precipitates further injustice.

TWO - Stop adding to the noise.

We don’t need more heat and more friction. We don’t need more comments and memes, and opinions on everything. We need to bring the temperature down. We need more people to disengage from the forums and feeds. Geopolitics cannot be understood in soundbites and vitriolic tweets. There is a big difference between whataboutism and the moral cowardice of neutrality on the one hand and the appreciation of complexity and nuance on the other. It takes work to understand issues, and that’s why we rush for the comfort of simple binary judgments. So much of our very human and understandable outrage is nevertheless impotent and serves only the masters of the social media platforms.

THREE - Seek Out The Wayfinders.

Among us now are people who are aware of the collapse, yes, but who are talking about what to do, not just how bad it is. Catharsis is necessary and sacred too, but it isn’t a way forward. Catharsis is the outlet for people who are ready to wake up.

We want to start engaging about our human response, our healing, our connection, our initiation into place, and our being part of the remedy in aligned ways. Enough people are highlighting the problem, but so few are ready for that conversation because they cannot let go of the old world; they cannot face how the old dream is dead and has become a nightmare. They cannot face our unfolding reality because we aren’t dreaming the new dream, we aren’t having mature and grounded conversations in how to be, how to support each other, how to human.

THREE - Be the One

No One else is coming. You came. You don’t have to carry it all. It is too big for you. Make peace with the collapse. Accept that on some level, your soul or some greater power decided you were going to be here now and be part of this. It is scary, but it is also exciting. Times of disruption are also times of enormous potential. You can show up where and how you are.

I can be that bridge and the articulation, and the living example of the far bank. You can be that. For that is how we leave this broken state and make our way forward from here, the bridge of bright human souls.

You can help support my meaningful work by liking, sharing this post, and commenting—anything you can think of that is meaningful—and you can make a fuss of these ideas with your social circles. And of course, as always, by subscribing and inviting others. Your paid subscription helps make this work possible and literally puts food on my own table.

TECHNIQUE

This belongs within the Journalist Protocol as the disciplined capacity to remain impartial and perceptually accurate while witnessing subjective experience with full presence and empathy. The player does not withdraw from emotional intensity, whether their own or another person’s, but maintains enough executive discernment to distinguish observation from interpretation, testimony from fact, empathy from identification, and immediate reaction from considered response. This allows the player to remain in contact with experiences of trauma, conflict, grief, fear, anger, or heightened arousal without allowing those conditions to completely overtake perception, judgement, or authorship.

What are Subjective Objectivity and Objective Subjectivity?

Objective Subjectivity and Subjective Objectivity are reciprocal techniques of self-awareness through which the player examines subjective experience, objective circumstances, and the relationship between them within the same field. The method makes it possible to recognise what is happening internally and externally, identify how perception is being shaped by memory, conditioning, emotion, judgement, bias, and prior experience, and distinguish these influences from the actual conditions of the moment.

• Objective Subjectivity begins with subjective experience and examines feelings, perceptions, memories, intuitions, interpretations, motives, bodily responses, and judgements as meaningful data. It evaluates them objectively by suspending or compartmentalising emotional and moral self-editing, while also treating that self-editing as data to be examined. This recursive movement is part of what makes the two perspectives reciprocal.

• Subjective Objectivity begins with the apparent objective situation and examines how it exists in relation to the particular subject encountering it. The participant’s position, history, capacities, needs, values, vulnerabilities, responsibilities, and lived experience form part of the objective context because relation itself is an objective condition.

The method preserves truth as relational without making it arbitrary. Subjective experience cannot be excluded from an adequate account of reality, but neither can it be treated as the whole account. In real time, Presence establishes contact with inner and outer conditions, Discernment distinguishes fact, relation, interpretation, bias, and responsibility, and Intentionality establishes the direction of conscious response. Retrospectively, the same movement enables psychological debugging and self-repair by revealing how perception and response were produced and what must be understood, integrated, corrected, or practised differently.

What makes this modality exceptional is that it preserves the truth of subjective experience without surrendering to subjectivism, while preserving the authority of objective reality without pretending the subject can be removed from it. It creates a disciplined movement between inner experience and external circumstance, allowing the participant to examine not only what they perceived and felt, but also how that perception was formed, edited, defended, or distorted. This makes it unusually powerful for profound self-awareness because it reveals both the content of experience and the psychological machinery through which that experience becomes meaning, judgement, and action.

Practised retrospectively, it supports psychological debugging, psychological self-repair, disintegration and integration. Disintegration is as important as integration; in fact, integration is quite impossible without discernment and disintegration of what is not authentic and not beneficial.

Practised in real time, it strengthens Presence, Discernment and Intentionality by allowing the player to interrupt unconscious momentum and participate from a more accurate, conscious, and self-governed position.

The Power of this technique

A person cannot govern what they cannot see, and they cannot see themselves clearly if subjective experience is treated either as unquestionable truth or as noise to be suppressed in favour of an abstract account of events. In the way the modality brings inner experience, external circumstance, and the relation between them into the same field of attention, it allows the player to recognise what is occurring, how it is being interpreted, what is shaping that interpretation, and what forms of response are actually available.

Self-awareness is therefore the necessary foundation of self-mastery. Self-awareness reveals the contents and operations of the psychological operating system: feelings, motives, assumptions, desires, fears, memories, bodily responses, inherited patterns, defensive strategies, moral judgements, and habits of interpretation. Objective Subjectivity allows the player to examine these as meaningful data without allowing emotional or moral self-editing to conceal, distort, excuse, or condemn them before they can be understood. Subjective Objectivity then restores the external field by showing how the apparent facts relate to the particular subject, including their position, capacities, vulnerabilities, values, responsibilities, and lived conditions. Together, they prevent both self-deception and self-erasure.

This matters because behaviour does not proceed directly from circumstances. It proceeds through apprehension, interpretation, emotional activation, judgement, impulse, and choice, much of which may occur beneath conscious awareness. Without examining that sequence, the player remains governed by inherited code while believing they are responding freely to reality. The modality makes the sequence visible. It reveals where perception was accurate, where an old pattern entered, where a legitimate inner truth was suppressed, where subjective conviction exceeded the evidence, and where apparently objective reasoning concealed avoidance, fear, or disconnection from the self.

Self-mastery develops when this awareness becomes governable participation. Presence allows the player to remain in contact with the inner and outer conditions of the moment. Discernment identifies what belongs to the situation, what belongs to the subject, what arises from their relation, and what requires response. Intentionality establishes a conscious direction rather than allowing reaction, conditioning, or unconscious momentum to determine what happens next. The player can then regulate, choose, act, review consequence, repair error, and integrate what has been learned.

The technique is therefore central to self-leadership because it converts experience into usable knowledge of the self. Repeated application reveals characteristic distortions, recurrent vulnerabilities, reliable intuitions, unmet needs, values, capacities, and the conditions under which coherence is lost or restored. Over time, the player becomes less easily captured by their first interpretation, less dependent upon defensive certainty, and more capable of responding proportionately to what is actually occurring. Self-mastery is not domination of the self by force. It is the increasing ability of the whole person to apprehend, understand, regulate, direct, and integrate their own participation in accordance with reality, responsibility, and their deeper truth.

The BJJ Belt Analogy

The belt analogy should give a player some sense of how this is applied in The Sacred Game

New White Belt

A new White Belt is first introduced to Objective Subjectivity and Subjective Objectivity as distinctions they must consciously remember. They are likely to experience feelings, interpretations and judgements as direct descriptions of reality, or attempt to become “objective” by discounting their subjective experience altogether.

The method is therefore applied slowly and retrospectively: What occurred? What did I experience? What did I make it mean? What belonged to the circumstances, what belonged to me, and how did each affect the other? At this level, even recognising that these are separate but relational dimensions is meaningful progress.

Six-Month White Belt

A six-month White Belt has begun to form a usable map of the modality. They can identify familiar instances of projection, defensive interpretation, emotional or moral self-editing, and false objectivity, particularly after the event. They can sometimes pause while a situation is unfolding and recognise that their experience is meaningful data rather than the entire account, or that an apparently objective fact must be understood in relation to the person encountering it. The process remains deliberate, and the player may need to reconstruct it step by step. Under unfamiliar pressure, the distinction can still disappear, and habitual interpretation can resume control.

Two-Year White Belt

A developed White Belt can apply the modality coherently across many ordinary situations. They can move between the objective circumstances, their subjective experience, and the relation between them without consistently confusing one for the other. They can review how perception became interpretation, how interpretation produced emotion and response, and how conditioning, values, needs, vulnerabilities or prior experience entered the sequence.

Objective Subjectivity and Subjective Objectivity have begun to form part of a larger understanding of Presence, Discernment and Intentionality, although maintaining that understanding during conflict, fear, shame or substantial pressure still requires conscious effort.

Blue Belt

At Blue Belt, the modality has become functionally integrated, like an add-on running in the browser that can be invoked at any time. The player does not need to reconstruct the entire method each time it is required. Increasingly automatic recall allows them to recognise subjective experience as data, apprehend the objective situation in relation to the subject, and notice emotional or moral self-editing while it is occurring. The two perspectives begin operating together with greater fluidity, allowing Presence, Discernment and Intentionality to participate as an integrated process rather than as separate steps.

The player also develops a recognisable personal game: they know the characteristic ways their own operating system edits experience, distorts interpretation, discounts inner truth, or mistakes subjective conviction for objective reality.

Purple Belt

At Purple Belt, the modality becomes adaptable rather than merely reliable. The player can apply it across unfamiliar, complex and rapidly changing situations without depending upon a rehearsed sequence of questions. They can hold objective circumstance, subjective truth, relational context, interpretation, bias, consequence and responsibility within the same field while remaining responsive to what the particular situation requires.

They understand the principles beneath the method and can distinguish them from formulaic application. The modality can move fluidly across Self, Container and Relationships, and Work, with the player recognising how distortions or discoveries in one marriage affect participation in the others.

Brown Belt

At Brown Belt, the modality is already integrated and is refined through sensitivity to subtle distortions. The player can recognise when apparent objectivity is actually emotional withdrawal, intellectualisation, moral evasion or the erasure of another person’s position. They can also recognise when claims of subjective truth conceal projection, entitlement, defensive certainty or avoidance of consequence.

Their application becomes more economical and exact, requiring less internal effort while preserving greater complexity. They can also detect when imprecise language collapses the distinction between the two perspectives or relocates the modality within a lower-order framework of either subjectivism or detached objectivism.

Black Belt

At Black Belt, Objective Subjectivity and Subjective Objectivity have become embodied within perception itself. The player no longer needs the terminology in order to apprehend the structures it names, although they can use the language precisely when teaching or analysing the modality. They can remain in contact with subjective truth and objective reality under significant pressure, revise interpretation without abandoning themselves, and include the subject within the objective account without making reality arbitrary.

Red Belt

The Red Belt would understand not only the established formulation of Objective Subjectivity and Subjective Objectivity, but the deeper principles from which it arises and the further forms those principles may take. They could preserve the essential reciprocal movement between subjective truth and objective reality while developing new language, practices, applications and teaching structures suited to different people, cultures, domains and levels of development.

Their mastery would be measured through what becomes possible beyond their own use of the modality: the players capable of deeper self-awareness, the institutions capable of more truthful reflection, and the wider field’s increased capacity to apprehend the relation between subject, object and reality without collapsing any of them.

PHILOSOPHY

Introduction

The Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment about identity through change.

Imagine a wooden ship whose planks are replaced one by one as they decay. After many years, every original plank has been replaced. The question is whether it is still the same ship.

The difficulty comes from the fact that ordinary identity seems to depend on several different things at once. It may depend on the original material, the continuity of the ship through time, its form, its function, its history, or the recognition of the people who use it.

The thought experiment becomes more difficult if all the discarded original planks are preserved and later reassembled into another ship. There are now two candidates for being the original Ship of Theseus. One has continuous history but none of the original material. The other has the original material but no continuous history.

The puzzle exposes a deeper problem. We often speak as though identity were a single property, but identity may actually arise from a relationship among material, organisation, continuity, memory, function, and recognition. Different criteria produce different answers.

Applied to a person, the question becomes immediate. The body changes, beliefs change, memories fade, relationships alter, and personality develops. Yet some form of identity appears to persist. The Ship of Theseus asks what that persistence consists of.

The thought experiment therefore does not merely ask whether the ship is the same. It asks what people mean when they say that anything remains the same through time.

The Ship of Theseus and The Sacred Game

The Ship of Theseus asks what makes something the same thing through change. If every plank of a ship is gradually replaced, is it still the same ship? If the discarded planks are later reassembled into another ship, which vessel has the stronger claim to the original identity?

For a player of The Sacred Game, the question concerns how a person can change profoundly while remaining continuous with their own history. Beliefs, habits, identities, relationships, defences, language and ways of understanding may all be revised over time. The player remains responsible for the voyage, even when much of the vessel has been rebuilt.

The discarded planks also remain consequential. Earlier identities and adaptations may survive in memory, shadow, family systems and habitual responses. They also live on in the minds of others as reputational and archetypal versions of the player. A person may have changed while others continue relating to an earlier construction of them.

Integration requires the player to recognise those former materials as part of the vessel’s history without allowing them to reclaim command. Some call for accountability, repair or grief. Others simply belong to forms that no longer govern the present.

The belt analogy helps describe how the player’s understanding of identity, continuity and transformation becomes progressively more integrated.

New White Belt

The new White Belt largely identifies with the existing planks. Thoughts, wounds, roles and habits appear to describe what the person simply is.

The first lesson is that the current construction is not the whole player. Parts can be examined, repaired or replaced without destroying the vessel. The player begins learning the language and distinctions needed to see this clearly.

Six-Month White Belt

The player can now recognise some recurring patterns and distinguish the present self from familiar reactions. They may notice an old plank before automatically acting from it.

The understanding is still deliberate. The player must remember the relevant principle and consciously create space between apprehension, interpretation and response.

Two-Year White Belt

The player has developed a more reliable map of how identity is formed and maintained. They can trace patterns across Self, Container and Work and recognise how earlier adaptations continue shaping present participation.

They can make intentional repairs and recover from familiar regressions, although pressure may still cause the old vessel to reassemble itself temporarily.

Blue Belt

The player understands that continuity does not require preserving every original part. Identity lies increasingly in the coherent organisation of the whole, the history of participation, and the responsibility carried through change.

This understanding is becoming integrated rather than merely conceptual. The player can revise beliefs, roles and practices without experiencing every alteration as a threat to the self.

Purple Belt

The player becomes more interested in the function of the discarded plank than in simply removing it. They ask what capacity the adaptation contained and how that capacity might be recovered in a more coherent form.

At Purple Belt, the player can recognise that other people are not responding only to the person presently before them. They are also responding to remembered roles, projections, expectations and archetypal placements. The player may begin to anticipate that they will be encountered as teacher, rival, parent, betrayer, rescuer, authority, outsider or some other psychic figure, depending upon the other person’s history and needs.

Control may contain stewardship. Aggression may contain force and boundary. Approval-seeking may contain relational sensitivity. The material is transformed rather than merely rejected.

Brown Belt

The player can preserve coherence through substantial reconstruction. Changes in identity, relationship or work are understood within the whole architecture of the three marriages rather than as isolated acts of reinvention.

At Brown Belt, the player can anticipate how their position, language, authority, behaviour and history are likely to constellate particular archetypal identities in the minds of others. They can account for this without trying to control every interpretation or collapsing into the identity projected onto them.

They also recognise when others are relating to an earlier version of the vessel. They can receive valid accountability without surrendering themselves to obsolete reputational or archetypal identities.

Black Belt

The player understands identity as coherent becoming. The vessel remains continuous through embodiment, memory, responsibility, relationship and participation, even as its form continues to change.

At Brown Belt, this becomes more precise and consequential. The player can anticipate how their position, language, authority, behaviour and history are likely to constellate particular archetypal identities in the minds of others. They can account for this without trying to control every interpretation or collapsing into the identity projected onto them.

Black Belt would involve being able to hold and teach within the archetypal field of interpersonal relationship. The player can recognise when projection is shaping a student, relationship or container, and can respond without exploiting the role, defensively rejecting it, or mistaking it for their actual identity.

The player can now help others distinguish essential continuity from attachment to particular forms. They can teach the foundational architecture, steward a serious container for practice, and recognise when a student is preserving a necessary structure or merely clinging to an old plank.

Red Belt

At Red Belt, the question extends beyond the individual vessel. It concerns whether a living philosophy, practice or lineage can remain coherent while its language, forms, teachers and institutions change over time.

The Red Belt apprehends the generative principles beneath the existing construction. They can preserve what is essential while allowing the vessel to evolve into forms that may no longer resemble the original ship.

The BJJ / Belt Analogy

Brazilian jiu-jitsu, or BJJ, is especially relatable to The Sacred Game because both are learned through direct participation in a complex field of pressure, resistance, uncertainty and consequence. In each, intellectual understanding is only the beginning. The player must learn to recognise what is happening while it is happening, regulate their own responses, recall relevant principles under pressure, and adapt those principles to conditions that never repeat in precisely the same form. Knowledge becomes competence through practice, and competence becomes increasingly integrated, fluid and embodied over time.

The similarity makes the belt system useful as an analogy for grades of competence and levels of initiation within The Sacred Game. It helps distinguish between encountering an idea, learning the language through which it is understood, grasping the philosophy and paradigm that organise it, applying it deliberately, integrating it across situations, and eventually expressing it with increasing automaticity, economy and adaptability.

This matters because The Sacred Game is not simply a collection of practices. It has its own language, distinctions, philosophy and way of understanding reality. Terms such as Self, Container, Work, apprehension, coherence, stewardship, shadow, integration and The Way do not function as interchangeable labels for familiar concepts. They belong to a larger paradigm. The player must gradually learn not only what the words mean, but how they relate, what they disclose, and how they reorganise perception.

Language therefore serves as part of the training architecture. At first, new language allows the player to notice distinctions that were previously blurred together or unavailable to thought. Over time, those distinctions become integrated into a more coherent understanding of experience. Eventually, the player no longer needs to translate everything consciously through the language because the paradigm has begun shaping perception from within.

The analogy does not translate perfectly because the rolls, drills and competition situations of The Sacred Game are real life. There is no separate test environment or user acceptance testing in which errors can be contained before release. We test in our production environment. Self, Container and Work are simultaneously the fields in which we practise, the projects we steward, and the realities affected by the quality of our participation.

Nor are the competition-level proving grounds something we can necessarily schedule or anticipate in advance. Some can be prepared for deliberately, while others arrive as conflict, loss, illness, rupture, responsibility, opportunity or crisis. These are the boss fights of life, and the player may enter them without warning, controlled conditions or any reliable indication of their difficulty.

The belts are therefore useful as approximate descriptions of competence, integration and initiation. They help us recognise how a player’s language, philosophy, understanding and practical capacity develop, but they cannot translate fully into a uniform ranking of the whole person. A player may be highly developed in Work while remaining comparatively inexperienced in Self or Container, and an unexpected boss fight may expose limits that ordinary participation had not yet revealed.

Instruction develops progressively through the belts, but no player teaches more than two belts below their own level. Even within that range, lower belts do not yet teach with complete autonomy or thoroughness. They can transmit what they have sufficiently integrated, explain foundational concepts, demonstrate established practices, and assist the development of newer players, but they remain under the guidance and oversight of those whose understanding of the language, paradigm, philosophy and practical field is broader and more mature.

New White Belt

A new White Belt has no reliable map of The Sacred Game. They may recognise individual ideas, but cannot yet orient themselves consistently within lived experience. Under pressure, attention narrows, familiar reactions take over, and principles that seemed clear in reflection become difficult to recall or apply.

They are not expected to possess knowledge or competence they have not yet had the opportunity to develop. Their task is to learn the fundamentals, become familiar with the concepts and language of the Game, and accept that not knowing is part of initiation rather than a personal failure. The first work is orientation: learning the terrain of Self, Container and Work, distinguishing perception from interpretation, noticing recurring patterns, and remaining present long enough to apprehend what is happening before reacting.

At this stage, language is often learned definition by definition. The player may understand individual terms without yet grasping the paradigm that gives them their full meaning. They may use the words correctly in isolation while still interpreting them through older assumptions, philosophies or psychological frameworks.

Much of the White Belt’s work is therefore unlearning. Disintegration is as important as integration.

A complete beginner with an empty cup can often learn more cleanly than someone carrying years of contrary language, habits, misplaced confidence, defensive interpretations or knowledge that does not apply to the present field. Existing ideas may not be wholly false, but they may belong to a different paradigm and therefore distort the meaning of what is being taught.

The player may need to loosen established ways of seeing, reacting and making meaning before the fundamentals can be integrated properly. Progress at White Belt depends as much upon receptivity as effort. The player learns to suspend premature certainty, tolerate incompetence, receive correction, and allow previously useful adaptations and assumptions to be examined rather than automatically defended.

Six-Month White Belt

A six-month White Belt has begun forming a usable map and language. They can recognise familiar patterns, identify some of the forces operating within a situation, and sometimes interrupt an automatic response before it completes itself.

Their understanding remains largely deliberate. They must remember the relevant principle, reconstruct the process and consciously attempt a more coherent response. Familiar situations are becoming manageable, while unfamiliar pressure can still collapse awareness into established habit.

The language of the Game is becoming more functional. Concepts are no longer merely definitions to be remembered, but tools for interpretation. The player can begin naming what is occurring within Self, Container and Work and can distinguish some of the differences between reaction, apprehension, interpretation, choice and consequence.

Their understanding of the philosophy remains partial and uneven. They may grasp individual principles while still missing the deeper relationships among them. The paradigm is beginning to form, but it does not yet reliably organise perception under pressure.

Two-Year White Belt

A developed White Belt can participate coherently in many ordinary situations. They can use established practices, recover from familiar forms of dysregulation, review consequences, make repairs, and steward Self, Container and Work with growing responsibility.

Their language and knowledge have begun joining into sequences and patterns. Apprehension leads into reflection, reflection into choice, choice into action, and action into review. The player can increasingly understand how one principle conditions another and how the parts of the Game relate within a larger philosophy.

They are no longer merely collecting concepts. A recognisable paradigm has begun to take shape. The player can interpret familiar situations through the architecture of The Sacred Game rather than translating everything back into prior assumptions.

Maintaining this integration under complex or unfamiliar pressure still requires deliberate effort. The player may understand the philosophy in reflection while reverting to older paradigms in conflict, fear or crisis.

Blue Belt

Blue Belt marks the consolidation of a functional intelligence within The Sacred Game. The player recognises the ordinary structure of situations, understands the relationships between Self, Container and Work, and can apply foundational principles with reasonable consistency.

Their base language for the Game and The Way is well established. They understand the central concepts not only as definitions, but as parts of an integrated philosophy. The paradigm has become sufficiently coherent that it begins to guide interpretation, judgement and action in real time.

The decisive development is integration and increasingly automatic recall. Apprehension, regulation, discernment, boundary, repair and choice begin operating together rather than as isolated practices. Familiar conditions call forth increasingly appropriate responses without requiring the player to reconstruct the entire process consciously.

The player also begins developing a recognisable personal game. They know which practices restore coherence, which conditions destabilise them, how their characteristic strengths and distortions tend to appear, and how to steward the three marriages with greater fluency.

At this level, understanding becomes more than conceptual possession. The player begins to think from within the paradigm rather than merely about it.

Purple Belt

Purple Belt marks a deeper level of fluidity, adaptability and systemic understanding. The player can move between principles without losing the thread of the situation and can respond to unfamiliar conditions without depending entirely upon rehearsed methods.

They recognise how patterns move across Self, Container and Work, and how an intervention in one marriage alters the others. They can hold greater complexity, contradiction and uncertainty while continuing to participate coherently. Their understanding becomes less procedural and more responsive to the whole field.

The philosophy of the Game is now sufficiently integrated that the player can distinguish principle from formula. They do not apply the same language mechanically to every situation. They understand that concepts acquire meaning through relationship, context, scale and consequence.

The player can also recognise where another person is using the same words within a different paradigm. They become more capable of identifying misunderstandings that arise not from vocabulary alone, but from deeper differences in ontology, epistemology, value and interpretation.

Brown Belt

Brown Belt concerns the refinement of an already integrated game. The player can recognise subtle contradictions and inefficiencies concealed within otherwise mature participation. They can detect where intelligence serves avoidance, where care becomes control, where discipline becomes rigidity, and where apparently virtuous action conceals resentment, fear or self-abandonment.

The player can maintain coherence through substantial changes in identity, relationship and work. Their participation becomes more economical and proportionate, with less unnecessary force, delay or internal conflict. They know when a form requires maintenance, repair, redesign or relinquishment.

Their understanding of the paradigm is now sufficiently deep that they can recognise distortions introduced by imprecise language, collapsed distinctions or misplaced philosophical assumptions. They can see how one word, used carelessly, can reorient an entire line of thought toward a lower-order framework.

The Brown Belt can therefore preserve the integrity of the Game while adapting its expression to different people and conditions. They understand the difference between translating the philosophy and diluting it.

Black Belt

Black Belt marks embodied mastery of the foundational Game. Its principles have become sufficiently integrated that they shape perception, judgement and participation from within. The player can remain coherent under significant pressure, adapt without abandoning principle, and draw upon a mature personal game without needing to reconstruct every response consciously.

The language, philosophy and paradigm of The Sacred Game have become deeply internalised. The player no longer relies primarily upon explicit terminology to recognise the structures those terms describe. They can move between language and direct apprehension, using concepts precisely without becoming imprisoned by them.

This is also the level at which the player can establish and steward their own dojo or school.

The Black Belt can therefore teach across the full foundational belt structure and supervise the teaching of others. Their authority rests not only in what they know, but in their capacity to recognise what another player is ready to receive, which language will clarify or confuse, what has been misunderstood, what remains unintegrated, and which elements of the paradigm must be preserved for the teaching to remain coherent.

Black Belt does not imply completion. It marks the point at which personal mastery becomes sufficient to found, steward and transmit a living field of practice while continuing one’s own development within it.

Red Belt

Red Belt remains more difficult to translate directly because it would describe a level beyond mature personal mastery. It may concern the degree to which the Game has become generative through the player, allowing their participation, work and stewardship to increase the capacity of others and contribute to the development of the larger field.

At this level, the player would understand not only the established language, philosophy and paradigm of the Game, but the generative principles from which they arise. They would be able to preserve coherence while allowing language and form to evolve, recognising which distinctions are essential and which expressions are historically contingent.

Mastery would therefore be measured not only by the coherence of the player’s own participation, but by what becomes possible through the forms, people, language, institutions and conditions they help bring into being.

What is The Way

The Way is the shared field of becoming through which every being inherits the consequences of what has already emerged, participates in the living threshold of the present, and contributes new conditions to what may become possible next. For the human player, it is the fitting path of participation disclosed through the relation among Fate, Logos, present conditions, Necessity, Desire, Calling, capacity, consequence, and service.

To follow The Way is to become increasingly capable of conscious authorship within an emergent reality that no participant controls alone, cultivating the Presence, Discernment, Intentionality, Form, Flow, Craft, self-permission, responsibility, and integration required to steer Destiny from within Fate.

The Sacred Game is the intentional and skilful practice of this participation: the pursuit of authentic becoming and meaningful contribution across Self, Container and Relationships, and Work, in service of Stable Mutual Actualisation for the player and the larger human and non-human whole, including those who came before, those who will follow, and those whose lives are affected by every wave the player both inherits and makes.

You will encounter the following concepts mentioned in this post and you can reference their meaning here: Concepts & Definitions.

• The Sacred Game

• Subjective Objectivity & Objective Subjectivity

• Emergence & Coherence

• Fate & Destiny

• Dharma

• Craft & Calling

• Presence, Discernment and Intentionality

• Form & Flow

• Actualisation & Integration

• Stable Mutual Actualisation

• The Arrow of Causality

Shadow is not synonymous with evil

Shadow refers to everything within us that remains outside conscious awareness but still influences our perceptions, choices, relationships, and behaviour. It includes forgotten experience, inherited patterns, unrecognised motives, suppressed emotion, disowned capacities, defensive habits, and aspects of ourselves we have not yet learned to see clearly.

Shadow also includes the lower and more egoistic dimensions of our nature: the impulses that take from others, violate boundaries, cause harm, diminish another person’s freedom, or impinge upon their sovereignty. These aspects require honest recognition, accountability, restraint, repair, and integration.

What remains unconscious can govern us without our awareness. What is faced can be brought into relationship with conscience, responsibility, and choice.

Fred Rogers said:

“Everything that is human is mentionable, and everything that can be mentioned can be managed.”

Everything seems big before we face it

The shadow often appears overwhelming while it remains unnamed, avoided, concealed, or confused with the whole of who we are. Facing it reduces its power to operate invisibly.

Integration begins by recognising what is present, identifying what belongs to us, understanding how it developed, and choosing how it will be governed from this point forward. The purpose is not to identify with the shadow or excuse its consequences. The purpose is to bring what was unconscious under the responsibility of conscious self-leadership.

The Sacred Game therefore approaches shadow through self-knowledge, self-acceptance, accountability, and constructive action. The player learns to distinguish between what was inherited, what was chosen, what was enacted before it was understood, and what becomes their responsibility once it is seen clearly.

The player does not throw themself on a sword or beat themself up. We do what is Beneficial not what is Maleficial.

Shame and guilt can be transmuted into remorse and regret, which can be distilled into lessons and wisdom.

The AA pattern applied to shadow integration

The transferable value of the AA process lies in its sequence:

Recognition → surrender → inventory → admission → willingness → repair → continuing practice

For a new player of the Sacred Game, this becomes a structured passage from unconscious participation to conscious self-leadership. The player faces what has been governing them, distinguishes inheritance from responsibility, accepts accountability for their own participation, repairs what can be repaired, and develops practices that reduce repetition.

1. Recognise the pattern

Some patterns begin in childhood through instruction, imitation, adaptation, coercion, or survival. A person may have been taught to lie, steal, hate, manipulate, violate boundaries, or mistrust others before they had the judgment to understand what those behaviours meant.

Recognising this does not remove accountability. It places responsibility accurately.

The player asks:

• What was taught to me, modelled for me, or made normal in childhood?

• Which of those patterns did I later repeat?

• What harm did those actions cause, regardless of where the pattern came from?

• What have I already refused to pass on?

• What ignorance, prejudice, defensiveness, or tyrannical habit still remains active?

• What do I understand now that I did not understand then?

• What does doing better require from me now?

The Sacred Game applies a simple precept:

As soon as I know better, I do better.

The player does not condemn the child they were for having been shaped by what surrounded them or by what they were induced into. They take responsibility for the adult who can now see the pattern and choose differently.

A useful admission is:

“I was taught things that distorted my understanding and shaped some of my behaviour. I am accountable for the harm I caused, but I am not the sole author of what was put into me. I have already broken part of the pattern by refusing to pass it on. What I can now see becomes my responsibility to examine, correct, repair, and no longer enact.”

This preserves both truth and accountability. It neither excuses the harm nor treats the person as though they consciously authored every influence that shaped them.

2. Submit the matter to a higher authority

In AA, the person turns toward a power greater than the isolated will. Within the Sacred Game, this higher authority may be understood as Reality, Life, truth, conscience, lawful principle, God, or a trustworthy field of guidance.

In the Sacred Game, this is called The Way.

The practical movement is from private preference to honest alignment. The player accepts that reality has greater authority than the story they would prefer to tell about themselves.

The Way asks the player to become willing to see what is true, accept what follows from it, and act in accordance with what they now know.

3. Conduct a radical self-inventory

Journal the matter objectively, as a journalist would. Separate fact, interpretation, inheritance, choice, consequence, and present responsibility. Journalists are known for remaining impartial and objective while witnessing, and empathising very deeply with, the subjective personal experience of another or themselves, even during experiences of heightened trauma or arousal that would normally derail the executive discernment of normal people.

See the post on Technique: Subjective Objectivity & Objective Subjectivity

See the definitions for Subjective Objectivity & Objective Subjectivity

Use four headings:

What happened?

Record the observable facts.

What was mine?

Identify what you chose, avoided, concealed, permitted, neglected, repeated, or contributed.

What was not mine?

Identify what belonged to another person, circumstance, inheritance, injury, coercion, limitation, or stage of development.

What remains mine now?

Identify what responsibility, repair, boundary, learning, restraint, or practice follows from what you now understand.

This separation is essential. Accountability becomes distorted when the player assumes responsibility for everything, and it becomes evasive when the player assumes responsibility for nothing.

The inventory may include:

• recurring resentments;

• fears and compulsions;

• concealed desires;

• defensive behaviours;

• broken agreements;

• relationship patterns;

• failures of courage;

• harms caused;

• inherited prejudice;

• habits of control;

• patterns of dishonesty;

• conduct that violated another person’s dignity or sovereignty.

The inventory should also identify the protective function of the shadow. A pattern may have begun as an attempt to secure safety, belonging, control, recognition, power, or relief.

Understanding the function does not excuse the conduct. It reveals what the pattern was trying to accomplish so that a more mature capacity can be developed in its place.

4. Admit it before a trustworthy witness

The player speaks the inventory to someone capable of receiving it responsibly, such as a mentor, sponsor, therapist, spiritual guide, or mature confidant.

Speaking converts private recognition into accountable reality.

The admission should be specific. It names conduct, motive, consequence, and responsibility without theatrical self-condemnation and without attempts to secure immediate absolution.

A useful form is:

This is what I did.
This is what I believe was operating through me.
This is how it affected others and myself.
This is the part that belongs to me.
This is what I now intend to repair or practise differently.

The player does not need to turn every past event into a full confession. The purpose is to end concealment where concealment is preserving distortion, repetition, or harm.

5. Become willing to relinquish the pattern

Shadow integration requires more than recognition. The player must become willing to surrender the advantage the pattern provides.

Control may provide temporary safety. Anger may provide power. Withdrawal may prevent rejection. Dishonesty may protect an image. Self-pity may suspend responsibility. Contempt may defend against shame. Tyranny may protect against helplessness.

The player identifies the function and develops a more mature capacity to meet the same need.

The shadow’s energy is integrated into a more coherent form rather than merely suppressed.

Control may become stewardship. Anger may become boundary and courage. Withdrawal may become discernment. The need for recognition may become honest self-expression. The need for safety may become wise restraint.

The player is not asked to destroy part of themselves. They are asked to bring it into right relationship with conscience, reality, and choice.

6. Repair the field

List the people, agreements, responsibilities, and areas of life affected by the pattern. Determine what form of repair is appropriate.

Repair may include:

• acknowledging the conduct without qualification;

• recognising its likely impact;

• correcting falsehoods or misunderstandings;

• returning money, property, time, or credit;

• fulfilling neglected obligations;

• changing a recurring behaviour;

• accepting a consequence;

• establishing a boundary;

• withdrawing from participation that continues to cause harm;

• refusing to pass the pattern on;

• practising restraint where an old impulse remains active.

Direct amends should serve repair rather than the player’s need for relief.

Where direct contact would create further harm, repair may take another form through changed conduct, restitution, restraint, service, or the refusal to repeat the pattern.

Repair does not always produce reconciliation. It restores the player’s relationship with responsibility.

7. Continue the inventory

The AA process becomes a way of living through continuing self-examination, prompt admission, reflective practice, correction, and service.

Within the Sacred Game, this is recursive self-leadership.

A simple daily or weekly audit asks:

• Where did I participate consciously and skilfully?

• Where did fear, resentment, vanity, avoidance, ignorance, or compulsion participate in my place?

• What consequence followed?

• What requires acknowledgment or repair?

• What capacity must now be practised?

• What will I choose differently when this pattern appears again?

The aim is prompt correction.

Small incoherences are addressed before they consolidate into character, relationship patterns, or life conditions.

When the matter has been adequately faced

A player may regard a matter as genuinely faced when:

• the facts have been named without euphemism;

• inherited influence has been distinguished from personal choice;

• personal responsibility has been separated from the responsibility of others;

• the motive or protective function has been understood;

• the consequences have been acknowledged;

• the matter has been admitted before an appropriate witness where necessary;

• reasonable repair has been attempted;

• a replacement practice has been established;

• recurrence will be met through continuing inventory and conscious choice.

The player remains accountable to future conduct without remaining indefinitely bound to self-punishment.

The past becomes instruction. Repair becomes participation. The recovered energy becomes available for the ongoing work of self-leadership.

The philosophy of the Sacred Game and The Way

As soon as I know better, I do better

Responsibility begins where awareness begins.

A person cannot change what they cannot yet see. Once a pattern becomes visible, they become responsible for how they respond to that knowledge.

Knowing better does not erase the past. It changes what becomes possible and what is required from this point forward.

Mistakes are how we learn

Mistakes reveal limits in understanding, judgment, skill, awareness, and character.

Their value lies in what they teach and in the correction that follows.

A mistake that is faced can become instruction. A mistake that is denied, defended, concealed, or repeatedly enacted becomes a pattern.

We become who we repeatedly choose to be

Character is formed through repeated participation.

Each choice strengthens a way of being and makes that way more available the next time a similar choice appears.

The player is therefore shaped by what they practise, tolerate, repeat, repair, and refuse.

Self-knowledge is essential for self-acceptance

A person cannot accept themselves honestly while remaining divided from the parts of themselves they do not understand.

Self-knowledge brings hidden motives, inherited patterns, wounds, capacities, fears, and contradictions into conscious relationship.

Acceptance begins with seeing clearly.

Self-acceptance is essential for self-leadership

A person cannot lead themselves while rejecting, denying, or disowning parts of themselves.

Self-acceptance creates the internal ground from which responsibility, discipline, correction, restraint, and deliberate choice become possible.

Self-acceptance does not mean approving every impulse or excusing every action. It means accepting the reality of what is present so that it can be governed consciously.

The Way is the ongoing practice of bringing what is unconscious into awareness, what is divided into relationship, what is harmful under responsibility, and what is learned into repeated choice.

TLDR: Using AI Beneficially

Within The Sacred Game, AI use is not judged morally or by a public standard of virtue, but by whether it contributes to Stable Mutual Actualisation: authentic, integrated development that also supports the development of others.

AI is beneficial when it helps you understand difficult material, test your thinking, identify gaps, explore connections, organise information, improve your work, or delegate routine production so that you can concentrate on higher-order understanding and judgement.

AI becomes maleficial when it substitutes polished language for genuine understanding, prevents the development an assignment is intended to cultivate, or presents generated work as evidence of authorship or ability you have not acquired.

The essential standard is conscious, discerning, and intentional use:

• Remain responsible for what you accept, express, submit, or publish.

• Ensure that you can explain, defend, revise, and apply what AI helped produce.

• Disclose AI assistance when it materially contributes to the language, reasoning, creative expression, or achievement being represented as your own.

• Use AI to extend your capacity and support integration, while retaining authorship of your understanding and participation.

A practical test is:

If the generated language disappeared, what understanding, judgement, and capacity would remain within me?

Overriding Principle

Use AI discerningly and intentionally in service of Stable Mutual Actualisation. Its contribution should deepen authentic understanding, support Integration, extend actual capacity, and preserve integrity concerning authorship, responsibility, and consequence. Where any uncertainty arises, the governing question is whether its use develops the player and beneficially serves the becoming of the whole, or merely simulates an actualisation that has not occurred.

Preamble on Beneficial vs Maleficial

Within The Sacred Game, the distinction between Beneficial and Maleficial is qualified by the primary objective of The Sacred Game: Stable Mutual Actualisation.

This describes an enduring condition in which the actualisation of each player supports the actualisation of all other participants they are in relationship with, and contributes to the increasing coherence, vitality, and possibility of the whole. A consequence is Beneficial insofar as it serves this movement. It is Maleficial insofar as it impedes, degrades, destabilises, or falsely simulates it.

Stable Mutual Actualisation is contingent upon Authenticity and Integrity, meaning that inauthenticity and lack of integrity are antithetical to the kind of actualisation we are referring to.

• Authenticity here means fidelity to one’s essential nature, rather than unfiltered self-expression,

• Integrity means coherence among truth, intention, conduct, relationship, and consequence, rather than moral perfection.

Stable Mutual Actualisation therefore should be disambiguated from the pop-sociology context around personal success, self-optimisation, accommodation, or stable coexistence: each participant’s becoming must be authentic, coherent, and supportive of the becoming of the others.

Authenticity implies how each play gets to discover, inhabit, and express their essential nature, heartfelt Desire, capacities, limits, and Calling. Integrity preserves the coherence of that expression across intention, conduct, relationship, consequence, and time.

Authenticity and Integrity depend upon Discernment and Intentionality. Discernment apprehends what is present, what matters, what belongs to one’s responsibility, which forces and limits are operative, and what a given course of participation is likely to produce. Intentionality establishes the direction of participation according to what has been discerned. Together they enable the player to distinguish between what appears immediately desirable and what will beneficially serve the deeper and longer movement of becoming.

Actualisation and Integration are intricately paired movements within that becoming. Actualisation brings latent essence, capacity, understanding, and possibility into developed and consequential Form. Integration enables the whole person, relationship, or system to absorb what has emerged, reconcile it with existing realities, and establish the coherence necessary to carry further development. Actualisation expands the range of possibility, while Integration develops the stability through which that expansion can endure and remain beneficial.

The Beneficial and the Maleficial must therefore be discerned through their consequences across the whole field of participation. Immediate pleasure, advantage, growth, or success may prove maleficial when it compromises Authenticity, violates Integrity, prevents Integration, diminishes another participant, or destabilises the shared conditions of actualisation. Difficulty, limitation, sacrifice, conflict, or loss may prove beneficial when it restores coherence, reveals Necessity, deepens Integration, or creates the conditions for more authentic and mutually sustainable becoming.

Beneficial and Maleficial are therefore relational and developmental judgements concerning the direction established by participation: whether it contributes to Stable Mutual Actualisation, or establishes conditions through which the Life and essential expression of the player, other participants, and the larger whole are diminished.

AI Within The Sacred Game

The Sacred Game concerns the intentional and skilful pursuit of authenticity, authorship, understanding, and actualisation. Our use of artificial intelligence must therefore be considered according to what it contributes to our becoming, what it displaces, and what kind of participation it cultivates.

AI is an extraordinary instrument for learning, inquiry, organisation, experimentation, and creative development. Players are encouraged to adopt it, explore its capabilities, and develop the discernment required to use it well. There is no virtue in refusing useful assistance when that assistance allows us to comprehend difficult material, conserve attention, work across unfamiliar domains, or direct our effort toward the part of the work that genuinely requires us.

The governing question is:

What relationship with AI will deepen my understanding, strengthen my authorship, and increase my capacity to participate beneficially?

Why Authorship Matters

Writing is often part of the process through which thought becomes integrated. Searching for the right language requires us to clarify what we perceive, discover relationships among ideas, confront gaps in our understanding, and give coherent Form to something that was previously incomplete.

When AI performs this process in our place, we may receive language that appears more developed than the understanding we have actually acquired. The resulting work can create the appearance of integration without producing the corresponding development within the player. If presented as our own achievement, it also gives others a false account of our authorship, judgement, craft, or capacity.

This becomes maleficial because it impinges upon the very evolution toward authenticity and actualisation that the work exists to serve. The player may possess a completed answer while remaining unable to explain it, defend it, revise it intelligently, apply it elsewhere, or recognise where it is mistaken. The appearance of competence then conceals the absence of the development that competence should represent.

Creative writing presents a particular concern because language, voice, imagination, choice, rhythm, and Form constitute much of the creative act itself. Where generated prose is presented publicly as personal writing, readers are entitled to understand what originated with the named author and what was produced by an artificial system. Disclosure preserves the integrity of the relationship between writer, work, and reader.

Beneficial Use

AI becomes beneficial when it increases understanding, agency, capability, discernment, and authentic participation. Players could use AI to:

• Explain difficult concepts in simpler language.

• Compare interpretations or perspectives.

• Identify gaps, contradictions, or unsupported assumptions in their reasoning.

• Test whether they have understood an assignment.

• Generate questions for further inquiry.

• Explore connections across domains that are not normally studied together.

• Assist with research and suggest avenues requiring verification.

• Help organise complex material into a workable structure.

• Review an outline before writing.

• Offer criticism of an argument or interpretation, provided it does not contradict the transcendent context and knowledge as the Corpus of The Sacred Game, A Better Way and other aligned projects.

• Proofread grammar, clarity, continuity, and structure.

• Compare a player’s own work against the requirements of an assignment.

• Suggest possible revisions while leaving the player to determine the final language.

• Help a player who is overwhelmed establish an accessible point of entry.

• Draft summaries, teaching materials, tables, presentations, and other functional content where the educational or creative purpose does not depend upon personally producing every sentence.

Players may also use AI while completing writing assignments. The relevant standard is the quality of their participation. AI can serve as an interlocutor, tutor, editor, research assistant, provocateur, and instrument of reflection. Players should feel free to use these capacities without fearing that the use of assistance is inherently immoral, dishonest, or lazy.

Intentional delegation is part of skilful authorship. Where a task involves compression, formatting, preliminary organisation, or the production of functional material, delegating it may conserve the attention required for higher-order interpretation, teaching, creation, judgement, and stewardship. Much of the coursework within The Sacred Game draws together complex material from domains that are rarely studied in relation. Using AI to digest, simplify, organise, and navigate this material can make deeper participation possible.

Be The Player

AI can contribute language, associations, structures, interpretations, and proposals. The player remains responsible for deciding what deserves acceptance and what enters the work.

Before considering something as sufficiently Understood, the player should be able to:

1. Explain the ideas in their own language.

2. Identify the reasoning through which the conclusions were reached.

3. Recognise claims that require verification.

4. Defend, revise, or reject the material when challenged.

5. Apply the understanding beyond the immediate wording of the response.

6. Distinguish their own contribution from the contribution made by AI.

7. Accept responsibility for the consequences of presenting the work.

A useful practical test is:

If the generated language disappeared, what understanding, judgement, and capacity would remain within me?

This question reveals whether AI has supported integration or substituted for it.

Authorship and Disclosure

Disclosure is required whenever AI has materially contributed to an achievement being represented as evidence of personal authorship, creative craft, reasoning, or mastery. The disclosure should be proportionate and specific enough to preserve an honest account of provenance.

Examples include:

• “I used AI to test my understanding and identify gaps in my argument.”

• “The ideas and final language are my own. AI assisted with proofreading and structural review.”

• “I developed the argument and used AI to produce an initial draft, which I substantially revised.”

• “This presentation was drafted and structured with AI from concepts, source material, and instructions I supplied.”

• “This piece includes AI-generated language that I selected and edited.”

• “AI assisted with research, comparison, and summarisation. I verified and interpreted the material.”

Minor assistance with spelling, grammar, formatting, or routine proofreading will not always require formal disclosure. Material contribution to the language, reasoning, structure, creative expression, or apparent achievement should be disclosed. Where an institution, publication, or assignment provides its own rules, those rules form part of the relevant covenant and must also be observed.

Discernment and Intentionality

Every use of AI establishes a relationship between the player, the task, and the development the task is intended to cultivate. Discernment identifies which part of the work must be encountered personally and which part can be delegated beneficially. Intentionality determines why AI is being used and what the player intends that use to make possible.

AI use becomes maleficial when it conceals the absence of understanding, falsely attributes authorship, weakens the capacity the exercise was designed to develop, or allows convenience to take command of participation. It becomes beneficial when it expands comprehension, strengthens judgement, supports authentic expression, removes unnecessary friction, and enables the player to participate at a higher level of coherence.

The standard within The Sacred Game is conscious and accountable participation:

Use AI to extend your capacities, deepen your understanding, examine your thinking, and support your work. Retain responsibility for what you understand, what you accept, what you express, and what you claim as your own.

We are pretty much fucked.

We fucked ourselves. We got fucked.

We all got fucked.

Can we just begin to face that?

There is absolutely a way forward from here. But there is not a way forward for psychological children and psychological adolescents. We didn’t get ourselves here, but we haven’t exactly made the most of our circumstances either.

At some point when you’re fucked you can absolutely do things to make it worse all by yourself. And that means you can absolutely do things to make it better. No one can do this entirely on their own. And then somehow poetically we all know there are some steps that have to be taken alone, otherwise how can we ever say what was ours to choose was ours? And to choose?

There is without question a way forward from here. There just aren’t perfect ways. There never have been and there never will be. Anyone who believes that is still a child. Not everyone who tells you that there is, believe it themselves otherwise they would not worry so much about what you believe and who should decide that for you.

Whatever system or voice or personality or book or whatever is telling you what the answer is, follow their plan out to its nth, where does it leave you? Where does it lead us?

Really?

What can they say of what forgiveness should look like and who gets it? What can they say of what your apology or appeal should sound like? What can they tell you of your deepest wounds, your agony, your griefs and longings? What can they possibly teach you about sincerity, not what it means and who decides, but how it feels from within, and how once you touch it, so many offered answers become unacceptable.

Give the wand of power to anyone who is making a noise on social media right now and I will show you someone who is not an adult in this world, still playing make believe about some thing or some god or some hero or some messiah or some day of reckoning or the aliens or some thing outside you that you need to dehumanise others for, that you need to agree to the neglect of children and the homeless, and the abuse and neglect of our environment.

We are all fucked. All our systems of control and permission are fucked. Our human institutions are fucked. Our biggest ideas aren’t big enough. They cannot lead us forward anymore. I wouldn’t be tearing them down either, not before we have some idea of how to pick up the functions they do perform, however poorly.

Everything is broken and we aren’t doing ourselves favours by fighting with each other for what they cannot give us.

I wouldn’t be baying for blood right now. I would be very careful with the torches we light now. Things are going to collapse on their own. There will be all the things we were told there would be when great change comes. War, pestilence, famine and Death.

Everything’s time comes. Everything comes to a head. In Jiu Jitsu, when things go to the ground, the real game starts. You begin to turn the tide only when you accept the first battle is already lost. The depth of your acceptance frees you up to be completely present for the battle that is coming. Everything happens in waves.

We forgot that.

All our systems of comfort were systems of avoidance of necessary discomfort. Our society is ignorant of necessity. Humans always survived when they acted as if No One Else was Coming.

There are no adults. Adults would not pretend this is fine.

Today, no one good is powerful enough to put things right or to champion our common human cause and no one powerful is good enough to want to.

Waves ripple. If we do not transcend our previous limits we will be doomed to repeat our past lessons.

There is absolutely a way out of this and it is called human leadership. Human leadership is shared and has a common cause. Leadership recognises leadership. Leadership recognises Necessity. No one’s story is bigger than necessity.

Leadership is love in action.

We don’t need millions of heroes. We need millions of adults. We need elders and visionaries, we need custodians and pioneers. We need philosophers and poets. We will always need all of these. 

Get yourself healed, get yourself fit and ready. Take whatever help you can get. Get your story of victimhood and perfection and worthiness and entitlement out of the way. Adults do whatever is most necessary, most beneficial, most wise for everyone long term. Adults act immediately, plan cyclically and aim beyond the horizon of where we are and who we are today.

Adults do not pride themselves in ignorance. Adults do what they must so that they can do what they want. Adulthood is fundamental self leadership and mutual responsibility for community and environment.

Adults empower themselves. Adults do not try and shape the youth, they initiate them into their inheritance. Adults give themselves permission to make mistakes. Adults come from love over fear. Adults choose discomfort. Adults live for something beyond themselves and live life most deeply in that way.

Adults accept risk because they accept reality.

Adults always care more about being part of solutions than being part of the problem. Adults ask themselves “Is my help helping?”

Adults admit mistakes because adults understand that mistakes are how we learn. If everything human is made mentionable then it becomes manageable.

Adults do not play politics. Adults are not enchanted by celebrity. Adults are not afraid to judge what they deem beneficial or maleficial. Adults develop their voice and their agency. Adults work on their crafts as the vessels and vehicles of their callings. Adults step up for what they believe in and what they care for. They live for something and they care about finding a way, even when it’s hard, but then they to do that best together.

Self-leadership is a craft. It is the prime craft. Parenting is a craft. Being a husband, being a wife have many crafts. Spirituality and purpose and philosophical virtue should mean nothing more than the investment and devotion to our crafts in the service of our callings.

There are simple and sophisticated games we can play. There are powerful and elegant human technologies we can engage and practice. There is knowledge and clever maps and useful tools and approaches, brilliant framings and resonant languages we can employ to play such games and harness such technology and follow such maps and deploy such tools. 

There is absolutely a way forward from here. I’m not looking only for followers here. I am also earnestly looking for leaders that can lead in that spirit, beyond brands, beyond scriptures, beyond rules, beyond fixed systems, beyond dogma and therefore beyond our limiting paradigms.

These games take initiation. They cannot be properly understood and appreciated by people who do not see themselves as mutually responsible for the future they are helping create, who do not see themselves as being keepers of the soul of humanity.

To help lead such a charge they have to have recognised the sickness and the wounds to their own souls and be brought into relationship with that necessary vulnerability that connects us all to Life. They have to be brought into relationship with other, and with place; with the environment and the way we share the road, and the respect of limits and boundaries and the way of cycles and seasons and principles of reciprocity and harmony that are necessary for Life. They have to appreciate the necessity of such initiation, however it arrives.

Life is about continuation. You are part of something. Every enjoying and suffering person, every experiencing and suffering thing is part of one dynamic organism, each with its own locus of experience, its own locus of meaning and its own locus of suffering. If a body would have consciousness it must be guided by Life, it must serve the continuation and flourishing and evolution of Life. Pleasure is not possible without discomfort. The lust for life is not possible without fear of death. The desire for peace is not possible without the imminence of injury and pain. 

But for all that, pain is not injury. Pain can be endured and often must be of greater injury is to be avoided. Discomfort is not oblivion or violation. And to more effectively and skilful avoid oblivion and violation, discomfort has to be chosen and endured. In the same way fear is not danger. Danger does exist, injury does exist, oblivion and violation exist and they change us. Their most essential function is to awaken us to the fact that one’s own agency and discernment are critical to human life.

There is so much to learn. There is so much to unlearn.

Where do we begin?

Presence, Discernment and Intentionality.

We need to come together as empowered individuals, and for that each person must have presence, discernment and intentionality. 

Challenge all your stories, all your systems of power, all your systems of permission, especially the deep psychological ones, for that is where your real brokerage of power and permission reside.

You cannot really take part in the adult conversation until you have at least looked into that mirror and been profoundly humbled but also exonerated by that facing of truth; which is always the facing of shame.

Adults are ones who realise we can be flawed and still honest with ourselves about where we are flawed, and vulnerable, and that, if we are honest with ourselves is all we actually ever expect from others.

What a world we can make!

What a story we could write! What a path we could forge. What a way we could open and light by the way we walk it.

I don’t have enough charisma or charm or clout to make a big enough mark on the moment. I don’t have the money or the kind of freedom from my own sense of authenticity it would take for me to make lots of money right now. I don’t have an image that appeals to nine billion ways we have been induced to expect good and right to look or to sound.

I am just a guy. 

I just don’t want us to go out like this, ignorant that a way is possible from here.

I don’t have all the answers. No one does. They don’t exist until we figure them out. We don’t even have the language yet to understand what is going on, and what the problems are, and what is fixable and at what level and to what degree and for what reason.

But I have something that matters and I’m prepared to do whatever it takes to get enough adults together to start shaping programs and product teams to make it happen. We just need to have the courage to rally under one banner and find ways to raise higher and higher banners above us as we keep joining forces with the ones who are also going our way.

There is no one channel, one media brand, one personal brand, one cute vision big enough or mature enough or aligned enough to be the sole voice of such a necessary movement. And again if adults and true leaders are not at the helm of such movements they will be led ultimately by the animal and children in all of us. We can no longer afford that zeal and impulsiveness, that recklessness. If we cannot tame and channel our exuberance what makes us think the spirit of the mob or the next wave of vibes are going to be enough. We have to lead in the spirit and cultivate the vibe.

This is not an ejaculatory free for all, or a piggy back ride for anyone’s vestigial political or ideological kinks.

This shit takes dignity, serious self-regulation and clear-headed intentionality.

It’s a grown-ups only club. Open-hearted, kind, but not here to fuck around or play footsie with victimhood narratives or be seduced by scapegoat/redeemer complexes.

That does not mean it cannot be sexy and arousing and deeply gratifying, it’s just not for the uninitiated adult.

That said who is down for the Great Unfucking?

I am so down!

Purpose

The Captain Protocol develops the capacity to remain oriented, coherent, and intentionally participatory while moving through changing conditions, contexts, relationships, responsibilities, and forms of being.

The protocol applies across the three marriages:

1. The marriage with Self

2. The marriage with Container and Relationships

3. The marriage with Work

Each marriage is a living vessel carried through time. Each has an inherited condition, a present position, a governing orientation, an accumulated momentum, and an emergent future partly determined by the quality of one’s participation.

Part I: Entering the Protocol

1. The Sacred Game

Reality is emergent, and what emerges is determined in part by the quality of our participation in and interaction with it. That participation is skilful or unskilful, intentional or unintentional.

The Sacred Game begins when the player recognises their participation and assumes responsibility for its quality.

The Captain Protocol concerns participation through time. It provides an archetypal and practical language for identity and coherence across a course of radical change and transition and transformation. The Captain Protocol incorporates orientation, navigation, transition, course correction, responsibility, maintenance, and the distillation of experience into wisdom over the course of our journey. It establishes, builds, expands and deepens the wisdom, understanding, experience, knowledge, conviction and skill that such a journey demands.

2. The Captain

The Captain is the governing consciousness responsible for the voyage.

The Captain inherits conditions they did not entirely create and encounters forces they cannot entirely control. Their responsibility lies in how they read those conditions, maintain the vessel, locate their position, choose their course, manage transitions, and respond to what emerges.

Captaincy is an earned capacity. The Captain’s career develops through experience, error, reflection, correction, ordeal, increasing responsibility, and expanding horizons.

3. The Three Marriages

The Marriage with Self

The marriage with Self includes one’s relationship with body, psyche, soul, history, desire, wounds, capacities, habits, potential, conscience, and Will.

Its governing question is:

Who am I becoming through the way I participate in my own life?

The Marriage with Container and Relationships

This marriage includes intimate relationships, family, friendship, community, agreements, boundaries, and every shared vessel created between people.

Its governing question is:

What are we creating between us, and what part of that creation belongs to my participation?

The Marriage with Work

This marriage includes vocation, craft, livelihood, contribution, enterprise, service, and the material expression of calling.

Its governing question is:

What does my work serve, and what is it causing to enter the world?

Part II: The Archetypal Primers

4. The Captain

The Captain embodies conscious responsibility, practical judgement, lawful authority, stewardship of the vessel, and fidelity to the voyage.

The Captain retains the helm without imagining command over the sea.

5. The Charioteer

The Charioteer is the Integral Self capable of coordinating differentiated forces and directing Will through coherence.

The Chariot is the integrated vehicle of actualisation. To be in one’s chariot is to occupy a position transcendent of circumstance while remaining fully engaged with circumstance.

The Chariot remains an unfolding archetypal meditation within the protocol. Its Tarot, Kabbalistic, Hermetic, psychological, initiatory, and Merkaba lenses continually deepen the understanding of Captaincy.

6. The Mariner and Pilgrim

The Mariner learns through passage, uncertainty, changing conditions, ordeal, discovery, and altered horizons.

The Pilgrim travels toward a meaning that changes the traveller. The destination exerts an orienting influence, while the journey develops the person capable of reaching it.

7. The Caterpillar, Chrysalis, and Butterfly

The Caterpillar represents the present form and the limits of its present horizon.

The Chrysalis represents the interval in which an established organisation dissolves before the emerging form becomes coherent.

The Butterfly represents the transformed form whose range, perception, and manner of movement were incomprehensible from the earlier condition.

This archetype establishes a developmental principle of the protocol:

The course remains navigable from the present position while remaining open to revision by the consciousness the journey is producing.

Part III: The Captain’s Equipment

8. The Charter

The Charter establishes what the voyage serves.

It names governing principles, commitments, responsibilities, jurisdiction, boundaries, standards, relationships, and the conditions under which a course requires reconsideration.

Each of the three marriages has its own Charter. Together they express the player’s present understanding of a coherent life.

9. The Captain’s Log

The Log preserves continuity between successive states and versions of the Self.

It records:

• Present position

• Prevailing conditions

• Decisions and their reasons

• Unfinished movement

• Changes of course

• Damage and repair

• Recurring patterns

• Thresholds crossed

• Consequences observed

• Understanding acquired

• Questions carried forward

The Log functions as a handover between watches. It allows experience to become available for reflection and eventually to be distilled into earned wisdom.

10. The Compass and Helm

The Compass answers:

What direction remains aligned with what matters most?

The Helm answers:

What action alters the present course?

Orientation and steering remain distinct. The protocol develops their relationship.

11. The Anchor and Hook

The Anchor establishes deliberate stillness, stability, presence, and resistance to unconscious drift.

The Hook retrieves what has been lost, secures what must remain connected, and recovers unfinished material from previous passages, or archetypally, what connects us to truth, like catching the salmon of knowledge or the shepherd's crook, the Muse that catches us.

12. The Spyglass and Timepiece

The Spyglass extends perception toward approaching conditions, hazards, opportunities, and horizons.

The Timepiece locates experience within rhythm, duration, sequence, season, cadence, and consequence.

13. The Sextant and Almanac

The Sextant establishes present position by reference to something higher and more enduring than immediate conditions. The tools we use to chart and navigate with precision.

The Almanac preserves knowledge of cycles larger than the current moment or voyage.

14. The Course and Maps

The Course expresses the present intended passage.

Maps encode the journeys and discoveries of others. They include psychological models, spiritual cartographies, philosophical systems, the chakra model, the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, Tarot, developmental frameworks, and inherited cultural wisdom.

Astrology provides a kind of map. Tarot is the master deck of archetypes and keys that ties astrology, psychology, alchemy, magic, sacred geometry, mythology, symbol and language together.

The Captain consults maps while retaining responsibility for judgement, present conditions, and the actual course taken.

Part IV: The Well Managed Transition

15. Transition as a Fundamental Condition

Existence in time unfolds through differentiated phases, rhythms, thresholds, endings, intervals, and beginnings. Life mediates duality through pulse, cadence, ebb and flow, waxing and waning, activity and rest, dissolution and reconstitution.

A transition carries momentum from one condition into another. Unconscious momentum becomes drift. Intentional transition establishes vector.

16. The Transition Sequence

1. Recognise the threshold

Name what is ending, changing, or being left.

2. Recover the Captain

Pause automatic movement and return to the governing centre.

3. Establish position

Identify present conditions, emotional weather, available energy, open responsibilities, and accumulated momentum.

4. Close the previous context

Distinguish what is complete, what remains unfinished, what requires release, and what must be carried forward.

5. Record the handover

Leave an accurate Log entry for the consciousness that will return.

6. Enter the interval

Permit the previous identity, rhythm, and field of obligation to loosen.

7. Recall the Charter

Re-establish the principles and responsibilities governing the context being entered.

8. Set the vector

Choose the quality and direction of participation entering the next phase.

9. Assume the appropriate office

Enter the next marriage, role, or condition with the form of presence it requires.

10. Integrate the passage

Observe what crossed the threshold, what changed during passage, and what the transition revealed.

17. The Books of the Dead

The Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead encode the preservation and steering of coherent consciousness through radical transition.

Their allegorical forms describe intentional vector-setting during the dissolution of a familiar identity and order. They provide recognition, orientation, remembrance, discernment, release, and instruction while consciousness passes from one phase of being into another.

The same grammar appears fractally in ordinary transitions, developmental transformations, grief, relationship changes, vocational passages, initiation, and death. The Well Managed Transition applies this underlying intelligence at the scale presently being lived.

Part V: The Three Marriages in Practice

18. Marriage with Self

The Captain reads the condition of the inner vessel: body, psyche, soul, attention, emotion, desire, habit, energy, and Will.

The work includes:

• Self-acceptance

• Self-leadership

• Healing

• Accountability

• Self-forgiveness

• Embodiment

• Discernment of desire

• Integration of experience

• Development of trustworthy habits

• Alignment between values and conduct

The central navigational distinction concerns what belongs to one’s responsibility and what lies beyond one’s jurisdiction.

19. Marriage with Container and Relationships

The Captain reads the condition of the shared vessel created between people.

The work includes:

• Agreements

• Boundaries

• Giving and receiving

• Intimacy

• Fractiousness

• Mutual responsibility

• Conflict

• Repair

• Forgiveness

• Separation

• Shared purpose

• Rhythms of connection and solitude

The condition of the shared vessel emerges through participation. Each person remains responsible for their contribution without assuming command over another person’s vessel.

20. Marriage with Work

The Captain reads the relationship among craft, vocation, livelihood, service, capability, conditions, and calling.

The work includes:

• Purpose

• Standards

• Practice

• Contribution

• Sustainability

• Material responsibility

• Ethical limits

• Timing

• Completion

• Course correction

• Development of capacity

• Reconciliation of ambition with maturity

Work becomes one of the principal vessels through which inner orientation enters consequential form.

Part VI: Depths of Play

21. Light Practice

The light practice consists of a brief daily orientation and deliberate transition between major contexts.

Daily orientation

• Where am I?

• Which marriage presently has the helm?

• What conditions are active?

• What am I carrying?

• What is mine to hold?

• What direction is my present participation establishing?

Transition entry

• What am I leaving?

• What remains open?

• What requires recording?

• What requires release?

• What am I entering?

• Who is required at the helm now?

Weekly review

• What happened within each marriage?

• Where did I navigate skilfully?

• Where did drift take command?

• What crossed from one marriage into another?

• What course correction is now evident?

22. Sustained Practice

The sustained practice includes:

• A Charter for each marriage

• A regular Captain’s Log

• Deliberate opening and closing rituals

• Tracking recurrent currents, hazards, and conditions

• Comparing intended and actual consequences

• Reviewing the exchanges among the three marriages

• Revising the course when experience alters understanding

The Hermetic principles operate here as practical lenses for recognising the deeper pattern within lived events.

23. Deep Practice

The deep practice treats Captaincy as an initiatory discipline.

The player examines:

• Inherited vectors

• Unconscious agreements

• Wounds governing perception

• Identities that have completed their function

• Attachments to former vessels

• Ambitions inherited from an earlier horizon

• Mislocated responsibility

• Repeated causes and consequences

• Developmental transitions already under way

• The emerging form seeking coherent expression

The deep practice draws upon the Chariot, Merkaba, Tarot, Kabbalah, depth psychology, Hermetic principles, the Books of the Dead, and other maps according to the passage being navigated.

Part VII: The Captain’s Recurring Cycle

Every cycle of the protocol follows the same fundamental movement, predicated on Presence, Discernment and Intentionality.

1. Establish position.

2. Read the conditions.

3. Recall the Charter.

4. Discern responsibility.

5. Set the vector.

6. Take the helm.

7. Participate.

8. Observe what emerges.

9. Record the passage.

10. Manage the transition.

11. Integrate what was learned.

12. Revise the course.

The same cycle governs an hour, a conversation, a conflict, a working day, a relationship, a vocation, a developmental passage, and an entire life. Its scale changes while its underlying coherence remains.

If you have questions, raise them as comments to this, and we can keep a growing context artefact of use and interaction that can be used for future players who would like to join in and play the game with us.

Or book time with me for sessions.

Book a Session with Rocco

This list will keep growing. If you cannot find what you are looking for, submit the request in the comments section, and it will be added.

These are the core foundational principles that describe the fundamental dynamics through which a player participates in The Sacred Game and navigates the three marriages of Self, Container, Relationships, and Work. They establish how reality becomes, how prior causes enter the present, how participation influences what proceeds from it, and how the player develops the coherence required to steer that participation consciously.

If referring to the archetypal register, the words are related to but distinct from their common-use equivalents.

Download as pdf

Download PDF

The Sacred Game

The Sacred Game itself is the intentional and skilful Pursuit of true authenticity and authorship. It is thereby the intentional and skilful pursuit of our most heartfelt Desires for Meaning and our Muses of Inspiration, in the service of Stable Mutual Actualisation for the player and the whole Way all the other players share: Human and non-human, past and future, awake or still sleeping.

Everything has a way of being activated and brought more deeply into its own Life and its own essential expression. Humans can steward that in themselves, their relationships, their families, their tribes and communities of interest. Even the communities of common interest in the neighbourhoods, cities, counties and provinces and nations we are co-creating through our inevitable and relative coparticipation. We can awaken the guiding invitational emergent spirit in ourselves, our relationships, our projects, in every form of participation with Life that we care about most deeply. And we can awaken that same guiding invitational emergent spirit in others, our neighbourhoods, that is to say both our urban neighbourhoods and our natural ones; the man-made, human-ordered ways of relating to place and sharing the way. Relating to place to get your own needs met while practising self-regulation that is most beneficial to that project of activating and awakening the guiding invitational emergent spirit that we associate with harmony and beauty and meaning, and reason. Reason is simply the sane navigation of the polarities of Necessity and Pragmatism and Idealism and Virtue on the other. Relating to anything requires Relationship. Relationships require investment and nurture, and engagement and responsiveness and boundary negotiating. That is what the Golden Rule actually means

Emergence and Coherence

Emergence is the process through which present reality arises from the interaction of precedent conditions, underlying principles, constituent forces, relationships, participation, and time. Reality is emergent because what exists now is the cumulative expression of what has already entered into relation, while every present act contributes new conditions to what becomes possible next.

Emergence is ordered without being completely predetermined. Every new condition inherits causal necessity while introducing further relationships, consequences, and possibilities. The player therefore encounters a world already in motion and participates from within that movement. Every wave one rides becomes a wave one makes.

Coherence is the quality of relation among the differentiated parts of an emergent whole. A person, relationship, work, vessel, or system becomes coherent when its principles, values, intentions, actions, structures, rhythms, and consequences remain intelligibly related and capable of serving the integrity of the whole.

Coherence is the measure of play. It concerns the alignment of apprehension, value, intention, action, consequence, actualisation, integration, and contribution. Within the three marriages, coherence allows each marriage to retain its own integrity while participating generatively in the larger life they compose.

Fate and Destiny

Fate is the total emergence of lower-order causality terminating in Now. It is the causal inheritance arriving in the present as body, ancestry, temperament, history, circumstance, culture, capacities, burdens, relationships, consequences, and conditions. Fate establishes the player’s actual position within the game and the forces already acting upon that position.

Destiny is emergence proceeding from Now. It is the developing field of future actualisation generated as Fate, Logos, circumstance, participation, and consequence continue their interaction. Destiny includes the possibilities latent within the present and the direction produced by conscious and unconscious participation.

The present is the living threshold between Fate and Destiny. The player receives Fate as the accumulated result of what has already unfolded and participates in the formation of Destiny through attention, interpretation, choice, conduct, relationship, discipline, surrender, and Will.

Dharma is the fitting path of participation emergent from the relation among Fate, Logos, and the conscious and unconscious quintessence of the player. Calling is the apprehended invitation or necessity through which Dharma begins to become consciously recognisable. The Sacred Game is the disciplined steering of Destiny from within Fate in alignment with Dharma and Logos.

Actualisation and Integration

Actualisation is the movement through which latent essence, capacity, possibility, and calling acquire developed and consequential form. It develops distinction, agency, expression, mastery, vocation, consciousness, creative power, contribution, legacy, and service beyond the self.

Actualisation is the ascending movement of becoming. It extends the range of what the player is capable of perceiving, choosing, embodying, creating, and contributing across the three marriages.

Integration is the movement through which differentiated capacities, experiences, inheritances, wounds, desires, contradictions, unconscious material, relationships, and consequences are brought into a more coherent whole. It converts what has been lived into embodied understanding and makes the gains of actualisation available to the whole person.

Integration is the deepening movement of becoming. It establishes connection, wholeness, belonging, internal agreement, and continuity among successive forms of the Self.

Actualisation without sufficient integration produces fragmentation, inflation, instability, or development that the existing vessel cannot carry. Integration without renewed actualisation produces consolidation without further becoming. Self-mastery develops through the conscious governance of their rhythm: expansion and consolidation, individuation and relationship, Spirit and Soul, Form and Flow.

Presence, Discernment and Intentionality

Presence, Discernment and Intentionality form the primary triad of conscious participation. They mediate the relationship between inner unfolding and outer reality, allowing Will to arise from an increasingly integrated position rather than from habit, reactivity, inheritance, or unconscious momentum.

Presence is conscious participation at the precise coordinates of time, place, body, relationship, and circumstance occupied by the individual. Presence establishes contact with what is occurring inwardly and outwardly, allowing the player to encounter the actual condition before interpretation and momentum take command.

Discernment is the faculty through which consciousness identifies salience, reads the operative pattern, distinguishes coherent from incoherent possibilities, locates responsibility, and reveals the actual field of choice. Discernment determines what matters here, what belongs to this context, what requires response, and which possibilities become available from the present position.

Intentionality is the establishment of conscious direction. It gathers attention, value, desire, meaning, and choice into a vector and becomes effective through Will, which translates that orientation into participation and action.

Together, Presence establishes position, Discernment apprehends the field, and Intentionality sets the vector. Their integration enables the Captain to read the conditions, recover the helm, and participate deliberately in what emerges across Self, Container and Relationships, and Work.

Subjective Objectivity & Objective Subjectivity

Objective Subjectivity and Subjective Objectivity form a reciprocal modality of psychological inquiry through which objective circumstances and subjective experience are examined within the same field. The method may be applied retrospectively to a remembered situation or practised in real time as events unfold.

What makes this modality exceptional is that it preserves the truth of subjective experience without surrendering to subjectivism, while preserving the authority of objective reality without pretending the subject can be removed from it. It creates a disciplined movement between inner experience and external circumstance, allowing the participant to examine not only what they perceived and felt, but also how that perception was formed, edited, defended, or distorted. This makes it unusually powerful for profound self-awareness because it reveals both the content of experience and the psychological machinery through which that experience becomes meaning, judgement, and action.

Objective Subjectivity begins with subjective experience and examines feelings, perceptions, memories, intuitions, interpretations, motives, bodily responses, and judgements as meaningful data. It evaluates them objectively by suspending or compartmentalising emotional and moral self-editing, while also treating that self-editing as data to be examined. This recursive movement is part of what makes the two perspectives reciprocal.

Subjective Objectivity begins with the apparent objective situation and examines how it exists in relation to the particular subject encountering it. The participant’s position, history, capacities, needs, values, vulnerabilities, responsibilities, and lived experience form part of the objective context because relation itself is an objective condition.

The method preserves truth as relational without making it arbitrary. Subjective experience cannot be excluded from an adequate account of reality, but neither can it be treated as the whole account. In real time, Presence establishes contact with inner and outer conditions, Discernment distinguishes fact, relation, interpretation, bias, and responsibility, and Intentionality establishes the direction of conscious response. Retrospectively, the same movement enables psychological debugging and self-repair by revealing how perception and response were produced and what must be understood, integrated, corrected, or practised differently.

This is why they are collectively called the ‘Journalism of the Psyche’ in so far as journalists can remain impartial and objective while witnessing and empathising very deeply with the subjective personal experience of another or themselves, even during experiences of heightened trauma, arousal that would normally derail the executive discernment of normal people.

Mythos & Logos

Logos is the ultimate ordered, lawful, and intelligible structure of Reality. It is the underlying Design through which principles, relations, forms, causes, and possibilities cohere. Human descriptions of Logos remain mediated approximations of an order that precedes and exceeds them.

Mythos is the symbolic, narrative, archetypal, conceptual, and interpretive rendering through which Logos becomes humanly intelligible. Mythos translates invisible order into forms that imagination, psyche, culture, and embodied consciousness can apprehend and inhabit.

Mythos continually reaches toward Logos. Logos Provides the order that makes Mythos meaningful, while Mythos encodes the human-demodulatable languages and mediums through which participation in that order becomes possible. Archetype is the modulation of Logos through the cosmic language of Meaning.

Form and Flow

Form is the containing, differentiating, stabilising, and organising principle through which something acquires identity, boundary, continuity, structure, and the capacity to endure.

Flow is the animating, relational, adaptive, and emergent movement through which energy, information, life, meaning, and possibility pass through and transform Form.

Form gives Flow a viable vessel. Flow gives Form vitality, responsiveness, and renewal. Their coherent relation is a dynamic equilibrium: stillness within movement and movement within stillness. Excessive Form becomes rigidity, while insufficient Form cannot carry the intensity or complexity of what seeks expression. Form is Masculine in nature, Flow is Feminine in Nature.

Craft and Calling

Calling is the apprehended invitation, necessity, or direction through which Dharma becomes consciously recognisable. It discloses what the player is being asked to become, develop, undertake, or contribute from the particular position established by Fate.

Craft is the disciplined development of the capacities required to answer Calling. It includes practice, technique, discernment, refinement, standards, patience, embodiment, and sustained relationship with the material through which Calling acquires Form.

Callings are what calls us, what drives us, (as humans and as conscious animals) via an inescapable pillar or poles of impelling and attractive forces that the human soul is suspended between, having both animal needs and divine aspirations that are frequently at odds with each other. Crafts are the curation and stewardship of the vessel capable of aiming in that direction and following that journey. Their union and communion allow inner orientation to become competent, consequential, and enduring participation, and it is the knowledge and integration of these that is the purpose and Modality of the Sacred Game.

The Sacred Game itself is the intentional and skilful Pursuit of true authenticity, and authorship. It is thereby the intentional and skilful pursuit of our most heartfelt Desires for Meaning and our Muses of Inspiration, in the service of Stable Mutual Actualisation for the player and the whole Way all the other players share: Human and non-human, past and future, awake or still sleeping.

Curiosity and Self-Permission

Curiosity is the movement of consciousness beyond the boundaries of its present knowledge, identity, expectation, and inherited world. It opens inquiry, follows salience, notices correspondence, and permits the unknown to disclose further possibility.

Self-Permission is the exercise of sovereignty through which the player authorises themselves to perceive, question, imagine, desire, experiment, refuse, change, and become. It releases participation from unnecessary dependence upon external permission while preserving accountability for consequence.

Curiosity and Self-Permission are the two wings of the Soul. Curiosity discovers horizons beyond the existing Form. Self-Permission allows the player to move toward them.

Beauty and Desire

Beauty is the apprehension of meaningful coherence through sensible, emotional, intellectual, symbolic, or spiritual Form. Beauty reveals an order whose significance is felt before it is fully understood and draws attention toward a more complete relation among differentiated parts.

Desire is the attractive and propulsive force through which the player moves toward relation, experience, expression, union, creation, knowledge, actualisation, or return. Desire supplies directional energy and reveals something of the participant’s conscious and unconscious quintessence.

Beauty calls and Desire answers. Discernment determines whether the movement they generate serves coherent actualisation or becomes governed by projection, appetite, imitation, or inherited momentum.

Giving and Receiving

Giving is the movement through which capacity, attention, care, knowledge, labour, value, presence, or life passes from a participant into another being, relationship, work, or field.

Receiving is the receptive capacity through which what is offered, encountered, inherited, or revealed is allowed to enter, affect, nourish, teach, or transform the participant.

Giving and Receiving form the generative circulation of relationship. Each marriage depends upon their rhythm. Coherence requires the ability to give without depletion or domination and to receive without surrendering discernment, responsibility, or sovereignty.

Covenant and Legacy

Covenant is a binding commitment made with Meaning, Life, another person, a shared vessel, a calling, or a future that deserves fidelity. It establishes an enduring relationship between present participation and what that participation serves across time.

Legacy is the downstream continuation of that covenant through the conditions, capacities, works, relationships, meanings, and possibilities left for those who follow. It is the causal inheritance produced by a life and transmitted beyond the immediate reach of its author.

Covenant governs what the player agrees to serve. Legacy reveals what that service causes to remain.

Reason and Necessity

Reason is the absolute expression of Nous and the intelligible order through which Reality can be perceived in its relations, causes, proportions, and consequences. It appears as the Reason inherent within Logos, the human faculty of reasoning, the reason or motive for participation, and the causal reason through which one condition proceeds from another.

Necessity is the determining condition that reveals what must be done, accepted, relinquished, preserved, or brought into Form for coherence and viable emergence to continue. Necessity arises where reality, consequence, responsibility, timing, and higher-order purpose converge into an unavoidable demand.

Meaning bows to Necessity. The covenant with Meaning therefore includes fidelity to what Necessity requires, even when its immediate meaning remains obscure to the present form of consciousness.

Beneficial and Maleficial

Bene is Latin for well, and male is Latin for badly. In beneficial, the element ficial is from Latin facere, to do or make, arriving through beneficium, a good deed or favour.

Beneficial describes a relational tendency or consequence that increases coherence, integrity, capacity, resilience, reciprocity, understanding, repair, agency, maturity, meaningful alignment, and viable future possibility.

Maleficial describes a relational tendency or consequence that degrades coherence, integrity, capacity, resilience, reciprocity, understanding, repair, agency, maturity, meaningful alignment, or viable future possibility.

Beneficial and Maleficial are contextual and causal judgements, not moral judgements. Their measure lies in what a pattern of participation produces within the participant, the relationship, the larger system, and the future field of possibility.

Supraficial, Suprasilient and Supravenient

Supra is a Latin word meaning above, over, or beyond. It appears in English mainly as a prefix in formal and technical vocabulary, where it indicates that something sits at a level higher than whatever follows from it.

Here the element ficial is not from Latin facere, but from facies, meaning face or surface. Superficial therefore means of the surface, pertaining to the outer face. The everyday sense of shallow is a later extension, and the original use survives in technical vocabulary: superficial wounds are those confined to the skin, superficial area is surface area.

Supraficial describes the prime (absolute) or upstream (relative) principles, precursor forces and limits extant in all things that inform their downstream or emergent manifestation and expression. It is the causally prior context of conditions, potentials, constraints, relations, and ordering influences through which manifest Form becomes possible and acquires its particular character.

The Supraficial becomes apprehensible through its effects. Every manifestation expresses the influence of the forces and limits informing its emergence, while no individual expression exhausts the unmanifest causal context from which it proceeds.

Suprasilience describes that which is “most salient” from a higher-order context and reorganises the field of relevance beneath it. Suprasilience is the structured emergence through which disparate insights, perspectives, disciplines, and correspondences converge into a more coherent topology of understanding. As the topology changes, relationships previously hidden become visible and the significance of existing nodes is revised.

Supravenience is the notion of fundamental or transcendent truth, that is, deeper or higher-order truth from which everything we encounter is downstream.

Supravenience implies an ordering principle or context that is more transcendent and/or fundamental than the emergent forms through which it becomes perceptible. It transcends, governs, and gives coherence to lower-order emergence without being reducible to any one expression of it. Supravenience is the underlying source of truth pervasive to everything that exists.

The Arrow of Causality

The Arrow of Causality is the structured and irreversible flow of emergence through which precedent conditions become the present and present participation becomes part of the conditions inherited by the future.

The Arrow carries Fate into Now and proceeds from Now as Destiny. Consciousness does not stand outside causality. It introduces reflection, imagination, discernment, choice, recursion, novelty, and intentional participation into the causal field.

Every wave one rides becomes a wave one makes. The player inherits movement already underway and contributes further movement through the manner in which they meet it.

Agile

Agile is an iterative discipline of conscious becoming through which the player acts from the best available understanding, observes what emerges, integrates feedback, and revises participation accordingly.

Agile recognises that the player, conditions, course, vessel, and horizon change through the journey. Knowledge develops through participation, while understanding remains corrigible by consequence. Actualisation and Integration therefore proceed through recurring cycles of intention, action, observation, reflection, adaptation, and renewed participation.

Stable Mutual Actualisation

Stable Mutual Actualisation is a condition of relationship in which the becoming of each participant supports the becoming of the others and the increasing coherence of the whole.

Mutual Actualisation preserves differentiation while enabling reciprocal development. Stability arises when the relationship can carry growth, conflict, correction, changing capacity, and increasing complexity without requiring the diminishment, absorption, exploitation, or abandonment of its participants.

Across the three marriages, Stable Mutual Actualisation describes the mature relation between Self and becoming, people and their shared container, and craft, calling, contribution, and the world being served.

Dharma

Dharma is the fitting path of participation emergent from the relation among Fate, Logos, present conditions, and the conscious and unconscious quintessence of the participant. It includes calling, gift, duty, purpose, ecological niche, orientation, and the manner of participation through which a being serves the larger order while becoming more fully itself.

Dharma is Rta translated into participation. It is neither selected independently of Fate nor imposed upon the participant from outside. It becomes increasingly discernible through attention to capacity, necessity, desire, circumstance, consequence, correspondence, and service.

Entelecheia

Entelecheia is the developmental fulfilment through which the potential inherent within a being, relationship, work, or system becomes increasingly actual.

Entelecheia describes an immanent movement toward the realised expression of what something carries within its nature and conditions of becoming. The acorn bears a relation to the oak, while the living emergence of the oak still depends upon soil, weather, ecology, damage, time, and participation.

Dharma concerns the fitting path of participation. Actualisation is the movement through which potential acquires Form. Entelecheia is the realised becoming toward which that potential and participation are ordered.

The Great So That

The Great So That is the recursive teleological operator through which purpose is related to a larger purpose: this exists, develops, heals, changes, or is undertaken so that a higher-order participation becomes possible.

Every practice, protocol, sacrifice, discipline, transition, actualisation, and integration serves a further condition of becoming. The Great So That prevents the immediate objective from becoming a terminal horizon by returning it to the life, relationship, service, future, or legacy it exists to enable.

(Within The Captain Protocol, the vessel is maintained so that the voyage can continue; the voyage continues so that the Captain can mature; the Captain matures so that greater responsibility, freedom, contribution, and service become possible. Each answer opens onto a more encompassing horizon.)

The Way

Generic Definition

The Way is the course through which a person becomes more fully themselves while learning to participate consciously, responsibly, and meaningfully in life. It is shaped by the conditions already inherited, the choices made in the present, the consequences that follow, and the purposes, relationships, and responsibilities that give those choices direction.

Following The Way means learning to recognise what life is asking, developing the capacities required to meet it, and contributing to a world in which one person’s growth can support the growth of others.

Definition for Players of The Sacred Game

The Way is the fitting course of becoming through which a player participates within the ordered emergence of Reality and contributes to what becomes possible next. It arises through the relation among Fate, Logos, Dharma, present conditions, Necessity, Desire, conscious and unconscious participation, consequence, and time. The player inherits The Way as movement already underway, encounters it as the field of viable participation available from Now, and further forms it through Presence, Discernment, Intentionality, relationship, discipline, surrender, and Will.

The Way is shared because every participant enters a field shaped by others and contributes conditions inherited by those who follow, while remaining particular because each player occupies a distinct position within the whole. The Sacred Game is the intentional and skilful practice of navigating The Way in service of authentic authorship, coherent actualisation, and Stable Mutual Actualisation across Self, Container and Relationships, Work, and the larger human and non-human field.

The Sacred Game is the intentional and skilful pursuit of true authenticity and authorship. It is the pursuit of our most heartfelt Desires for Meaning and our Muses of Inspiration, in service of Stable Mutual Actualisation for the player and for the whole Way shared by every other player: human and non-human, past and future, awake or still sleeping.

Reality is emergent. Every player enters conditions already formed by causes, relationships, choices and lives that precede them. This inheritance is Fate. Through Presence, Discernment, Intentionality and Will, the player participates in what emerges from the present as Destiny. Authorship means assuming responsibility for the part of reality that one’s participation helps to create.

The purpose of play is to become more deeply and authentically oneself while contributing to conditions through which other beings may also come more fully into their own Life and essential expression. This is Stable Mutual Actualisation: a way of becoming in which the development of the player supports the development of others and the increasing coherence of the whole.

The Game is played through the three marriages: the marriage with Self, the marriage with Container and Relationships, and the marriage with Work. These are the primary fields through which the player’s inner orientation becomes conduct, relationship, craft, contribution and consequence. Growth within one marriage changes the conditions of the others.

Play begins with Presence: recognising where one is and what is occurring. Discernment reveals what matters, what belongs to one’s responsibility and which possibilities are most coherent. Intentionality establishes a vector. Craft gives that intention competent Form, while Integration converts experience into embodied understanding and prepares the player for a larger range of participation.

The player learns through consequence. Beneficial participation increases coherence, vitality, agency, reciprocity and future possibility. Maleficial participation diminishes them. Error becomes material for Integration, while curiosity and Self-Permission keep the player responsive to possibilities that the present version of the Self cannot yet fully comprehend.

The Sacred Game extends through relationships, families, tribes, communities of interest and the places and societies created through inevitable relative coparticipation. Every choice enters a wider causal field. Covenant gives that participation fidelity through time, and Legacy is what it leaves available to those who inherit the conditions produced by our play.

A new player begins with three questions:

1. What am I becoming through the way I presently participate?

2. What do I most deeply desire to bring into Life?

3. How might my becoming contribute to the becoming of some greater self and some greater whole?

A New Player’s Introduction to The Sacred Game

Entering the Game

You have entered a life already in progress. You inherit a body, a history, a family, a culture, a world, a particular arrangement of capacities and limitations, and the consequences of causes that began long before you became conscious of them. You also possess some capacity to notice what is occurring, to understand its significance, to choose how you will participate, and to influence what emerges next.

The Sacred Game begins when you take that capacity seriously, which is why we say The Sacred Game is a game for Adults, people who can keep and maintain boundaries, people who can practice Consent in absolutely all aspects of their Life.

To become a player is to recognise that reality is emergent and that your participation contributes to what becomes real. Your attention, interpretations, habits, relationships, choices, refusals, creations and commitments continually enter the conditions from which the future emerges. Some of this participation is conscious and skilful. Some proceeds through inheritance, adaptation, appetite, fear, social conditioning and unconscious momentum.

The Game is the lifelong practice of becoming increasingly conscious, authentic and skilful in how you participate. How we play The Game determines how we Follow The Way. The Way is bigger than the Game. How big the Game can be depends how big and deep you consider your field and theatre of play.

The Purpose of Play

The Sacred Game is the intentional pursuit of true authenticity and authorship. It is the pursuit of your most heartfelt Desires for Meaning and your Muses of Inspiration, in service of Stable Mutual Actualisation for yourself and for the whole Way shared by every other player: human and non-human, past and future, awake or still sleeping.

Authenticity concerns the discovery and expression of what is most essentially yours. Authorship concerns your responsibility for the life, relationships, work and consequences that your participation helps to create. Together they ask that you become more deeply yourself while developing the capacity to bring that Self into consequential and coherent relationship with the world.

It is a core principle that Everything has some way of being activated and brought more deeply into its own Life and essential expression.

Human beings possess a particular capacity to steward this process consciously within themselves and to contribute to it within their relationships, families, communities, work and shared world. The quality of your becoming therefore belongs to a field larger than your private fulfilment.

This is the meaning of Stable Mutual Actualisation: a condition in which your becoming contributes to the becoming of others and to the increasing coherence of the whole, while their becoming enlarges the conditions available to you. The aim is a form of participation capable of carrying growth, difference, responsibility and relationship without requiring the diminishment of one participant for the development of another.

Fate, Destiny and the Present

Your starting position is Fate. Fate is the total emergence of lower-order causality terminating in Now. It includes everything already present within and around you: your history, temperament, body, relationships, circumstances, wounds, gifts, obligations, opportunities and the consequences already moving through your life.

Destiny is emergence proceeding from Now. It is formed as your inherited conditions, the larger order of Reality, the participation of others and your own conscious and unconscious choices continue to interact.

The present is the threshold between them. You receive Fate here, and from here you participate in Destiny. You cannot choose the whole field in which you play, yet the quality of your participation changes what becomes possible within that field. Authorship begins with an honest encounter with your actual position and extends through the choices by which you establish a direction from it.

The Three Marriages

The Sacred Game is played through three primary marriages.

Your first marriage is the marriage with Self. It includes your relationship with your body, psyche, soul, history, desire, wounds, capacities, habits, conscience and unfolding potential. Its central concern is the person you are becoming through the way you participate in your own life.

Your second marriage is the marriage with Container and Relationships. It includes intimacy, family, friendship, community and every shared vessel created between people. Its central concern is what your participation helps to create between you and others, and whether that shared creation supports the integrity and actualisation of those it contains. This includes all beings who you inherit your present moment and Life and all beings who experience the effects your choices cause, relative to the degree of relativity. The closer the relationship, the deeper the marriage. The closer the relationship, the more you have to share responsibility for your shared containers and what is most beneficial for truly “all”.

Your third marriage is the marriage with Work. It includes craft, livelihood, vocation, service, contribution and the material expression of Calling. Its central concern is the relationship between what you are capable of bringing into Form and the life or world that your work serves.

These marriages continually exchange conditions. The state of your relationship with Self enters your relationships and work and they all exert necessary tension on each other. Your relationships influence what you can sustain, imagine and become. Your work alters your inner life, your shared containers and the wider field inherited by others. Coherent play requires attention to each marriage and discernment of the exchanges occurring among them.

Prime Faculties of Play

Presence, Discernment and Intentionality are the primary faculties of conscious participation.

Presence establishes your actual position. It brings you into contact with what is occurring within you, around you and between you and others at the coordinates you presently occupy.

Discernment apprehends the field. It identifies what matters, distinguishes the relevant pattern, locates your responsibility and reveals which possibilities are coherent with the life you are seeking to create.

Intentionality establishes a vector. It gathers attention, value, Desire and choice into a conscious direction that can be translated through Will into conduct.

The player learns to move through these faculties repeatedly: become present, discern what the moment contains, establish an intention, participate, observe what emerges and integrate the consequences into future play. In this way, lived experience becomes understanding and understanding acquires greater fidelity to Reality.

Learning Through Consequence

The Sacred Game is tested through participation. Every principle, interpretation and course of action eventually encounters consequence. What follows reveals something about the coherence of the understanding from which the player acted.

Beneficial participation increases vitality, integrity, agency, reciprocity, understanding and viable future possibility. Maleficial participation degrades these conditions. These terms describe causal tendencies within a particular context, including their effects upon the player, other participants, the shared container and the future that all of them are helping to produce.

Error remains part of play because the player begins with partial knowledge and develops through experience. Accountability allows error to become available for correction. Integration converts consequence into embodied understanding. Curiosity keeps perception open to what the existing map cannot explain, while Self-Permission allows the player to move beyond an inherited identity when greater coherence requires it.

Becoming a Player

You enter as you are, from the position you actually occupy.

The Game does not require a perfected Self before participation begins. Perfection is neither necessary nor possible, even if it remains both sane and rewarding to keep leaning towards the invitation it broadcasts as desire, beauty in the express service of meaning. The person you may become through the journey cannot be fully comprehended from the horizon of the person beginning it.

Your first responsibility is therefore to become present to the life already emerging through your participation. For each of the different aspects of your psyche and conscious experience, the personae, the archetypes, the body consciousness, the gut feel, the intuitions and subconscious roots of self, there are languages and maps and practices and therefore understanding, knowledge and skill to be integrated. Specifically Understanding, Knowledge and Skill or Capability. Each of these require the other and must be practised and cross-applied. There are “mat practices” and “beyond the mat” practices. On the mat practices are session-based practices such as yoga, breathwork, journaling, pranayama, prayer, Qigong, astrology, and tantric practices in the typical sense. Beyond the mat practices are things that happen as coherent life practices that are practised in real time across and between and within session-based practices.

These should all serve the purpose of supporting and benefiting our three marriages to Self, Relationship & Containers and our Work, our Crafts and Callings in this world. Relationships and Self-leadership should be driven by authentic Calling and demand therefore sophistication, efficacy and ongoing investment in and devotion towards our Crafts and the pursuits of our Callings.

The player is devoted to attending to the condition of your three marriages. Notice what repeatedly acquires energy, where the friction and resistance is, what continually leaks energy and demands trauma response, which patterns reproduce themselves, what you most deeply Desire, and which possibilities call forth a more authentic and capable version of you. The player understands that our power lies in authenticity, vulnerability, and self-permission which are all waiting for us kept in trust behind our unfaced discomforts and guarded by our shame and lack of self-love, self-leadership and self-respect.

Begin with these questions:

1. What am I becoming through the way I presently participate?

2. What do I most deeply Desire to bring into Life?

3. What is my participation presently creating within each of my three marriages?

4. What appears to be mine to steward now? Where would I need to level up in order to step up?

5. What single decision am I avoiding out of a lack of self-permission is standing in the way of choosing those level-ups?

Your first move is made from the position revealed by your answers.

You become the answer to your most sincere questions. We become who we repeatedly choose to be. Would you not choose to be the most empowered, most self-loving, better version of yourself while fulfilling your own deepest desires and learning to lead and invest in the people, things, projects, causes and relationships in the world that you care for the most?

“Who am I?” is the question that must be pursued with utter devotion if we ever mean to identify with the infinite and eternal “I am” we wish to come home to.

If you have questions, raise them as comments to this, and we can keep a growing context artefact of use and interaction that can be used for future players who would like to join in and play the game with us.

Hello friends

I live by an archetypal calendar and I navigate life via a mythic map.

Whoever begins doing this inevitably develops a deeper sense of interiority and for them the world and the extraordinary times we are living through can begin to make a different kind of sense, in the language that is native to our soul.

Joseph Campbell said “Myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human manifestation.”

I would remind you to notice how Disruption is the new normal, and invite you to appreciate how this week especially is a time of living through metaphoric death and rebirth.

Necessary beginnings require necessary endings.

In the archetypal register Death is what must occur to anything that has outlived it’s usefulness to our onward journeys of growth and the evolution of our souls.

This can include relationships, beliefs, habits and especially our identities. Sometimes our identities are like our crab shells that we inevitably need to break free from and leave behind if we mean to grow. And sometimes we are like a vine or a tree that loses a limb in a storm or must be pruned in order to adapt to the coming seasons and bear new fruit.

This kind of threshing and loss we endure isn’t just like husk being removed, it feels like the losing of skin, and armour and limbs. We have to endure these phases of loss so that we can continue our pilgrimage towards meaning.

Such moment of departure, change and disruption always come with some loss, sometimes of comfort, sometimes of innocence; some door has to close for another to open and we have to endure great vulnerability before our new crab shell can form.

We are deeply served by ritualising these passages of metaphoric death and rebirth. This kind of stepping through requires by definition a great letting go, an ‘enlightenment’ as it were, meaning how letting go can lighten our burdens of expectations we have of the world, of others and of ourselves.

Think about how guilt and shame and resentment and blame and fixation weigh us down, and how the patterns they can lock us into keep us small In some important way.

New beginnings arrive through the door of necessary endings. There is an art to stepping through that doorway and facing the threshing of the threshold.

We have to leave behind us what can no longer serve the evolution of our souls.

One of the most essential practices of letting go is Forgiveness.

A PRAYER FOR LETTING GO
Loss is a necessary part of change, change a necessary part of growth. The secret aim of all tension is transformation.

I release you, so
that you may release me.
The place that I take in your heart,
the way you speak to yourself in my voice,
and conjure my face,
let it be now only
the part of me
that you knew to be good,
that may serve to guide you home
towards your truth.

By this;
I make the way clear again
between us,
and allow the bonds and chains that
we felt as wounds,
to be loosened,
so that we may connect again
with that in the world
which we loved in our hearts
about each other.

By this,
I make the way clear again
for me,
to connect again
with that about Life
which I loved in my heart
about myself.

I release you, so
that you may release me.
That we may put down
the weight that we carried
from our time together
and our parting;
and have washed clean at last,
the lingering taste
of the way we parted,
and acknowledgement
of the scars that we held,
each in our own manner and measure
of reckoning
more by the lessons they describe
than the manner or measure
of wounding.

I release you, so
that you may release me.
That we may be left to carry only
that part of our song,
which knew only
how to love
and be loved,
something that may yet grow
into a feint hymn of fondness and appreciation
that is overheard being sung, unbidden
in the garden of our hearts by a bird
whose name we never learn.

Here at the end of this cycle
there is nothing left to forgive.
I let it go,
so that I may belong, fully, to the next cycle,
and leave all that is small in me, behind me
and take all my inheritance with me.

I honour the one
that walked the road, that bore the chains,
that gave and received the wounds,
I carry your essence with me,
in the form of Understanding.

I am free.
I wish you to be free also,
and by that I am made free.

I am whole.
I wish you to be whole also,
and by that I am made whole.

© Rocco Jarman, March 2023

If I cannot love and forgive others for the wounds they gave me, i have missed the lesson of the wound. And then of course, if I cannot love and forgive myself, for the wounds i gave others, I have missed the lessons of love and forgiveness.

with Love

Rocco

No AI was involved in the authorship of this piece.

There is so much going on that no one can say what is most important to be paying attention to, and still be completely right. No one can say what is most important at any given point, and still be expected to be believed or even understood by everyone else. Even if they happen to know what they are talking about. Our human history is coloured and textured precisely by such comedy and such tragedy.

There is a movie we’re watching, with too many scenes, all happening at once, on a screen too wide and too high to take in the full picture. The screen folds back on itself and all around us.

And that movie contains other movies that are playing out together; of people commenting on, analyzing, sensationalizing, interpreting and criticizing that movie. And there are people commenting on, analyzing, sensationalizing, interpreting and criticizing that commentary, that analysis, that sensation, that interpretation and that criticism. Content. Content creators. Sowing so much dis-content and discord.

Our human story is playing in that cinema. That is our drama, our convictions, our grievances, our hungry ambitions, our vigilant mistrusts, our lies and our truths, our masks and our shadows, our dazzling brilliance and our profound stupidity, constantly fictionalised and glamourised and pathologised and endlessly syndicated, regurgitated into a twenty-four-seven, global series that has entered not just a new season but a new era.

This is the internet. Internet truth, internet personalities, internet stardom, internet producers, internet franchises, internet culture. That’s how business is done.

The internet is the digital mirror of our collective consciousness, our collective subconscious. It is the platform on which our marketplace of attention and exchange, of values, is being decided. It is telling us who we are, telling us what is true, what is real. And in that, it is telling us what is and what is not possible.

“The goal of the Web is to serve humanity. We build it now so that those to come to it later will be able to create things that we cannot ourselves imagine”. Those were the words of Tim Berners-Lee, the godfather of the World Wide Web. Tim Berners-Lee was a visionary, but I don’t think our modern reality is what he imagined. We were so trusting, so naive, so enamoured of novelty.

We don’t know who to believe anymore, what to pay attention to first, what matters most. We have so many pressing questions. Is this technology serving human agency, or compromising it? What food is safe to eat? What medicine is safe to trust? How do I protect myself from law enforcement? —that we even have to ask such questions is itself a reflection of broken social trust.

And before we can get a handle on our first desperately important question, the next one arrives, and the next and the next. A dazzling array of conflicting answers, all confidently provided by the mongers of all that content.

That is how business is now done. And politics and religion and our sciences, even our humanities, have now become businesses. So that is, now, how everything is done.

When you talk business, you have to understand things as a marketplace.

A marketplace is a convergence of three things: the offering you have to sell, the proprietor and the consumers.

If you’re a baker, you make and sell bread, and that only works if you have a village of people who appreciate and value your craft and the fruits of your craft and calling, to enter into an exchange with you, where they are willing to gladly part, with their hard-earned coin, their currency, to fill their bellies with your bread.

But there is a fourth thing. The marketplace and its regulators and the throne they bow to. For as long as we have had stuff to trade or sell, there have been the kind of people who do not produce or labour themselves in such marketplaces, who take their cut in exchange for some intangible that we nevertheless deem essential.

We call it taking a cut off the top.

The highest person in such a hierarchy is the one who has the right to produce the least and take a cut off the top. The art of the deal.

The intangibles that they take can be our dignity and our liberties.

It was Herbert Hoover who said: “Liberty is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity.”

History remembers Herbert Hoover harshly as a president, and more generously as one of the most effective humanitarian organizers of the 20th century. He used those words repeatedly in speeches during the 1930s and 40s as a warning to the public about the gradual erosion of civic freedom through centralized power and dependency.

Further back into our human history, sometimes it was a king demanding a tax. Sometimes it was the warlord who simply took whatever they wanted under the premise that might is right, or the Tyrant would do much the same under the premise of necessary order. Sometimes it was the conqueror who demanded tribute.

The king was expected to provide the intangibles of law, justice and peace for that tax. Conquerors let you keep an intangible portion of your autonomy in exchange for that tribute, for as long as you kept paying that tribute, as long as you submitted to the yoke and kept making the right noises. The Tyrant always demanded loyalty tests and let you keep your head.

The immortal words of Thucydides describe an uncomfortable truth: “The strong take what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The quote appears in the famous Melian dialogues, in which mighty Athens, at the height of its power, delivers its ultimatum to the little sovereign and neutral island of Melos. Valuing their independence and sincere in their neutrality, the Melian diplomats desperately and eloquently mount the most compelling moral case appealing to divine justice, under a pretext, it turns out, they lack the power to enforce, which is derisively and brutally dismantled. The inevitable outcome is one in which no Melian survived slaughter or slavery. It is one of history’s starkest statements of naked power politics: moral appeal folds to the hand of asymmetrical power, and justice becomes whatever the dominant party determines.

“The strong take what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Nature is not exempt from this. Nature is both bountiful and ruthless. Parasites are common in nature. From the remora fish that hitches a free ride and scores a free lunch to the ticks and leeches that suck the blood from their unwilling, unwitting hosts, there are organisms in life that get theirs by taking some of yours, while offering you nothing in return. Such parasites learn how to bypass and even subvert our natural defences.

It is not uncommon in the music industry for the performing artist to receive less than a third of the profits made from their craft and labour. The rest is distributed to people who deliver related services or produce no craft themselves at all. The lion’s share of which always goes, without fail, to the executives, people who set the terms, deliver no service, create and produce nothing at all;

Sinead O‘Connor said, “The music industry is not interested in music. It is interested in money.” Her critique extended beyond the financial aspect of contracts into how artists are psychologically managed and spiritually depleted.

Prince said, “If you do not own your masters, your master owns you.”

By ‘masters’ he was undoubtedly also referring the original, final audio files of a song or album from which all copies, streams, and physical products are made, but it is hard to assume he did not intend the pun. He later wrote SLAVE on his face during performances to make the point visible. His fight was explicitly about ownership of creative labour and the asymmetry of power between artist and corporation.

Parasitic relationships that take some of yours, while offering nothing in return.

We have always had kings and warlords and tyrants and conquerors. Industrialisation changed the game.

Between 1200 and 1500 of our common era, for three hundred years, the city of Venice was captured by this same spirit of enterprise. In its heyday, Venice was the richest republic in the world by aggregate wealth and per-capita prosperity. Not unlike the US.

Venice and close rivals Genoa and Florence dominated trade in Europe and the Mediterranean, which was the gateway to the trade routes of Asia and Africa. Between them, they had no natural resources; they produced none of the products or wares that passed through their ports. They built ships and, with those ships, exerted extraordinary political and commercial dominance over all of the known world at the time, something never before seen, but which would go on to be the blueprint of every successful empire and commercial enterprise that shaped, and still dominates, our modern era.

The Arsenal was Venice’s industrial engine. Founded over 920 years ago, in 1104, it functioned as a state-run shipbuilding and logistics complex, effectively the world’s first large-scale assembly line. It was a marvel of its age, and its height; thousands of workers could produce and outfit a galley in days rather than months, supplying the fleets that enforced Venetian trade dominance across the Mediterranean. It was the world’s first military-industrial complex.

The Arsenal transformed Venice from merchant republic to fully industrialised power projection: logistics, labour, and capital fused into a single apparatus that made “taking a cut off the top” scalable across continents.

Ten generations of human beings in Europe and the Mediterranean lived in a world where Venice and the way it amassed wealth and leveraged power, was their ‘normal.’

But even for such parasitic organisms, good times come to an end. What goes up, must come down. Markets that operate on such principles cannot endure disruption.

Venice’s time had come, and a new era was dawning in the world. Within six short years came two fateful occurrences that would mark the beginning of the end of Venice and a new era of global expansion.

In 1492, it was Chris Columbus who sailed west to the Americas in a move that would lead to the export of this rapacious spirit of empire and a domination of the peoples and the land of what European folks in their all too human arrogance and entitlement, called the New World. As if life and human life, and all its forms of exchange, had not been going on in its own world for many hundreds, if not thousands of years. What followed was opportunity taken through conquest, prosperity acquired through human slavery, and expansion achieved by genocide; unacknowledged wrongs which can never be made right. An entire hemisphere was placed under the yoke of an extractive imperial spirit, its wealth taken, its peoples displaced or destroyed, and its future mortgaged to an empire that mistook entitlement for manifest destiny.

In 1498, Vasco da Gama sailed East around the southern end of Africa to reach India, creating a direct route between Europe and Asia, paving the way for that same export of the spirit of Empire that had made the Venetians and their competitors so prosperous. The same spirit of entitlement that would go on to violate the sovereignty of peoples, pillage their riches, desecrate their temples, outlaw their languages and leave an unhealed scar in the psyche and another shameful blemish on the human record.

But Venice had made itself so powerful from this art of the deal, this enshrinement of the model of taking a cut off the top, that it took hundreds of years for its influence to wane and disappear altogether. But not before leaving an imprint in our collective mind and memory.

That same spirit of taking a cut from the top has become how everything is done. How we respond to the sick and ailing, even the dying, is a business. How we educate young people and prepare them for their turn to lead is a business. How governments operate, how politics are played, how we find love on modern dating sites, how we practice the politics of determining our own futures on social media, how we practice science, everything is a business.

So, if you are like me, you are looking at all this, stuck in all of this, sick from all of this. Bewildered by how starved for meaning our human project has become, then listen up.

Maybe you are one of those, like me, who believe deep down that you have medicine for this moment. Maybe there is some daily bread you want to bring to market, some bellies you want to feed with your craft. Maybe it is the medicine of your music or your art, or your ideas that you think can form part of our oncological response to that state of illness and hunger for meaning.

We need to think about the convergence of three things:

First is the medicine you bring. Whatever that is.

Maybe it is some proverbial daily bread, maybe the medicine is an insight or game-changing idea, maybe it is literal music and the powerful medicine of that. Maybe you have some other service you want to bring into the world. This is your craft, your offering.

It is the thing that wants to move through you, the unfolding gift of you that you feel called to share.

The second and third things are you and the market. If you are a baker, you want a village of people whose bellies are hungry for that daily bread, who can be nourished by it, who will speak well of your bread, and who are gladly willing to part with good coin that was hard-earned, because they can taste the difference, the care in the craft and the process of what you are doing. We want that convergence; a mutually beneficial arrangement.

You might be a musician looking for a ready audience. By ready I mean people who appreciate your dedication, your devotion, your craft. Your personality seen as part of the product, so there is no need for performance, just earnest delivery. Or rather, the only performance is you performing your own authenticity, wherever you are on your journey, letting people in on some of your finest works, your greatest hits, the sacred pieces you love more than your audience knows how to, and wishing you could find people who love them as much as you do.

The art, the music, isn’t just content. It takes years of devotion to your craft. It takes attending to your instruments. If you are a baker, it is the ingredients you use, the protocols, the process, your refinement over time, and learning how to enter flow inside your work, to get out of the way and let your gift give itself. The audience, the market, the people you want to connect with, they have to be of a certain stripe. They have to have enough maturity, enough awareness of the value of such gifts. They need an interior life, an inner depth and resonance, that can actually appreciate your craft, your product, your offering and your ideas.

Unless you have some Rick and Morty-style portal gun to teleport yourself into the perfect village, you are delivering your medicine, your technology, your gift into an audience that often does not know what to expect. Everybody knows what fake means as an idea, but not everybody understands what authentic feels like, or looks like. So we don’t all know what to attach that word to anymore.

We only have this shared marketplace of the internet, where you have to market and peddle your medicine. So you are on YouTube, Instagram, or podcasts. And suddenly you also have to become an expert in social media, video editing, digital marketing, hashtags, search engine optimisation, a whole range of specialities and skills that detract from the authenticity and integrity of you, and diminish the gift and the medicine you came here to share, dimming the insight and the offering you had hoped could do the talking for you.

And right now, there is no other way.

The internet is our only collective marketplace right now. John Maynard Keynes said, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”

And in that collective marketplace, you are competing with so-called bakers and so-called musicians and so-called leaders and so-called coaches and grifters and influencers who have not sat with the struggles you do daily, who have not devoted seven years to their craft. They can just generate something effortlessly with AI. They do not need to have anything original to say. They can borrow someone else’s words, pretend it was their idea, and move on.

They do not have your scruples. They do not have your self-doubt. They do not have your integrity to wrestle with. That battle was fought and won a long time ago. And it was their hunger for attention that won that battle. And these platforms serve that hunger and reward the spirit of taking something for nothing.

It is an unholy arrangement and an unhappy one.

The systems that form the internet exist to serve shareholders of corporations, not humanity as Berners-Lee once so boldly envisioned. Collectively, the system is designed to squeeze more vitality out of a depleted human population and to extract more resources from a depleted ecosystem. To take more from things that actually need tending, while offering none of that tending in return, or doing it in the most performative, cosmetic way possible, just enough to protect an external image without causing avoidable impact on the bottom line.

And because that is the game, whoever they may be, they, are prepared to bend the rules, change the rules, and do just about anything to serve the people with the most flex, the most money, whichever gets the job done. People who are willing to part with their money to get their will done in the marketplace.

This is neither unnatural nor accidental. This is exactly what happens when a platform runs unchallenged on such foundational beliefs that the smartest person in the room is the one who, having made the art of the deal, can take the largest cut off the top, giving the least back in return. The words that rang from the mouth of the President of America once extolled the sacred civic virtue to ask not only what we could get for ourselves, but to ask rather what we could give to the world. These were the words of John F. Kennedy before the shots rang out.

The words that are ringing from the mouth of the President of America today are what price will you pay for my favour, what tribute will you pay me? What loyalty test will you sell your soul for?

The shots are ringing out.

And these algorithms, these platforms, trained our youth. They initiated them into a version of reality and society. We outsourced that job. We handed it over to social media, to online porn, to reality TV, to influencer culture, to online dating, and to memes. And to the comments section of a dank subreddit.

Now we are not in a position to protest, because all of our protests have been priced into the market. And where is the only place you can protest? In the marketplace. And when someone controls the flow of information and the direction of attention, what can you say?

What can you say now?

What can you do now?

Because the algorithm and the platforms cater to the lowest common denominator in our society. The most immature, the most hostile, the most placating, the most distracted. The narrowest ideologies and the most radical beliefs.

There is a little grotto in Plato’s Cave that you can break into and put another false light up in, and invite the whole of humanity inside, and they will sit there. They will squeeze themselves into that place.

Somewhere around 2,400 years ago, the brilliant greek philsopher Plato gave us all a lasting metaphor by which to understand the mechanisms of mass delusion and the power of narrative. The city of Athens was past the heyday of its military ascendancy, the republic faced economic ruin and civic trust was shattered. Public rhetoric had become cynical and performative, and power was shifting through the machinations of persuasion instead of civic duty and wisdom.

Plato had watched his mentor, Socrates, executed by the will of the people, so hungry for catharsis that they could not endure his criticisms, or the complicity and shame those criticisms exposed in themselves. Because in essence Socrates had kept saying the same simple and profound thing, his medicine, his daily bread, for which he refused to repent and was forced to drink a fatal dose of hemlock, which was his discernment and his maturity. Socrates had told the Republic the following truth:

Most people do not actually know what they think they know. They inherit beliefs from culture, authority, and habit. They confuse reputation with virtue, success with wisdom, and confidence with truth. And unless they examine their own lives, they remain governed by forces they do not see.

The Athenians, the forefathers of our modern democracy, sentenced a man to death for holding these truths. The official charge was “corrupting the youth”.

That event convinced Plato that popular opinion, crowd psychology, and unexamined belief could literally kill truth, and so he left us with the story of the cave.

In this cave are prisoners, chained together, forced to face the back wall, staring at flickering shadows cast by a procession of people, animals, and objects moving behind them, passing between themselves and the fire, the only source of light in the cave. Mixed with their own shadows are the warped, flattened, featureless images of things they have no frame of reference for.

The uninformed human mind, robbed of perspective and context, will fabricate a story. And eventually it will entrain to whatever story is fed to it.

On the internet today, that dazzling and dark mirror of our collective consciousness, there is a little grotto in Plato’s Cave that you can break into and put another false light up in, and invite the whole of humanity inside, and they will sit there and call it progress or salvation. They will squeeze themselves into that place.

How do we respond to that?

It was Plato’s pupil Aristotle who said: “Dignity does not consist in possessing honours, but in deserving them.”

When something is so big, so compelling, so consuming, so enthralling, what can we do in response to that? When we look back across the course of human history, when we look at the lessons from nature, and the way it behaves, we learn that the most powerful response to such things is choosing, or learning how to affect, the opposite of such a thing.

So what is the response to an overwhelmed marketplace? We can try to create a second marketplace, but then how do we get everybody there? We can set up a corner of the existing marketplace and start behaving differently, transacting differently, talking differently. But then the problem becomes reach. How do we get around the algorithm and the built-in incentive structures that thrive on maintaining the status quo? The question comes back to reach.

Right now, reach is supposedly solved by words like virality. You just have to hope your idea goes viral, or you have to pay for it. You pay somebody.

But guess what happens in those marketplaces when you pay? I have experienced this myself.

I started doing this work back in 2019 and 2020, before COVID and through COVID, and the aftermath that led to today. This was a time when our cycle and phenomenon of ‘instant authority’ on social media was becoming a defining characteristic of our times. Back in 2020, we were all epidemiologists and vaccine scientists, then geopolitical strategists dissecting the Ukraine conflict. Next, we became authorities on the complexities of Israel and Palestine, and then we suddenly became moral philosophers and ethicists commenting on the ideological assassination of a healthcare CEO.

I could see the trouble coming that we are facing today. I cared about what I was doing. I wanted to sell my bread. I was a civic philosopher, delivering aphorisms, insights, philosophy, and observations on our present moment, and on the coming of this threshold we are now stepping into deeper and deeper. For some reason, I was able to intuit the shape of the trouble people are waking up to more and more. Which is now no longer a fringe notion and is slipping faster and faster into our mainstream awareness.

I was talking about it then. And I wanted to boost my ideas. I wanted to honour my calling. I wanted to share my craft. I wanted to bring my medicine, my technology, my insights, my ideas, my gift. I wanted to bring my gift to the marketplace of human attention. I cared about some of these ideas so much that I tried the hashtags. I tried the formats. I tried boosting posts. I paid for things to be boosted.

And they take your money.

But just consider how a machine does that matching. Even if they were acting in everybody’s best interest, we can see now, with these AI agents we are all engaged with, that they are brilliant in some ways and pretty fucking stupid in others. The shallowness with which they connect ideas somehow coexists with their brilliance, with their ability to distil volumes and volumes of complex information.

You can tell AI is something humans made because it contains such profound paradox.

The way they do these matches, and the people they draw in, it is a synthetic form of connection. Of the fraction of the accounts you reach, only a small fraction of those will understand what you are saying, only a fraction of that fraction will resonate, and only a fraction of that will follow. A small fraction of that fraction will be inclined to engage, to like, to follow through to your page, to subscribe to you. How few do you think will care enough about what you have to say to wonder about the person who said it? Most people you reach in this way have to be forgiven for assuming you are just like everyone else; selling synthetic fake bread and digital pseudo-medicine to grow your account, build your platform, get more clicks and likes, and eventually funnel people into some downloadable booklet or course or mastermind program and all the other shit.

Then you get a handful of subscribers who actually buy into what you are saying. They like your jam. They stick around.

But the next thing you say has no guarantee of reaching them.

Because that same platform that connected you together for the fifteen dollars you paid out of your own pocket to sell more of your good bread is also being paid by everyone else. Millions of people are competing on the same platform for that person’s attention. Somewhere up that food chain, somebody paid the maker of the cellphone to listen in on your conversations, to grab that information, to pass it on as a product to a company willing to pay for it, to sell you something a machine thinks you need based on what you said or what you last liked.

They are higher up the food chain than you are. They have more money. There are more of them.

So even if somebody subscribes to your YouTube or your Instagram, there is absolutely zero guarantee they will ever see your content again. Your efforts to reach them are buried in a queue that is just too long. We all become fatigued from having our attention saturated. We each have a personal threshold for how long we will scroll before we give up. And unless someone deliberately goes to your account to look for what you have to say next, it simply does not happen.

So that kind of reach, we already know, is part of the disease. It is part of the disease your medicine is trying to cure.

What we are doing is insane.

So what is the opposite of that insanity?

If we cannot get a machine to do the matching and the boosting and the sharing, what do we do?

We have to get human beings doing the sharing and the promotion.

And here is one of our biggest challenges right now in the marketplace: as consumers, we take no responsibility for how we engage, how we show up, how we respect craft. We just take. We just consume.

We have been conditioned to believe that all content is just content and that this content creator is going to push their content out anyway, so it is not my problem. I do not have the energy. I do not have the bandwidth to like, to comment, to engage. I certainly do not have the social courage to share what they are talking about, because somebody might link me to something this person says, or I just do not want that kind of attention. What’s in it for me?

Or I am too busy trying to sell my own bread. Is this person a competitor to me? Because even if I am not making bread, they are still competing for the same attention. And I am so desperate to get my promotional pitch through my little digital shopfront that I do not know if I can afford to help someone else.

And then there is the second problem. We are dealing with a population on the internet where the lowest common denominator makes up the bulk of the numbers. In a herd, it is the numbers that decide where the herd is headed. They are the ones who decide whether we keep living life by default, accepting the status quo and the way things are.

They lack the discernment to tell the difference between good bread and great bread, or between real food and some highly processed wobbly thing that can sit on a shelf for weeks without growing green mould. Their values are arranged differently. They do not care about the same things you care about, or even to the same degree.

That is why pop music sells. That is why Coca-Cola is the most popular beverage in the world. Just add sugar. That is why, if you throw enough money at advertising and marketing, you can make an entire market love something, believe they must have something, something that did not even exist in their reality until you told them about it.

They love novelty so much. They do not understand how they are being manipulated, how easily they are being manipulated, and how easy they are to manipulate.

The prisoners in Plato’s Cave beligerently resisted being freed and treated anyone who told them about the sun like a threat. They called them disruptors of the peace, heretics, fools worrying about intangible ideals.

Our lowest common denominator is the bulk of our society. They are not uneducated, and they are not only all of those people who disagree with us politically. They are our neighbours in suburbia, and our colleagues at work. They are everyone else, just like us, who get their news and opinion from all the popular outlets, podcasts and streaming services. They are products of the system. They get told who to love. They get told what to believe. They get told what to value, whose opinion to trust, and why. They get told who matters and who does not. They get told who is less human and who is more valuable. And they get told, over and over again, that they are right. And if anyone disagrees with them, they are told what a fool that person is, what a bad-faith actor that person is, what a monster that person is.

And wouldn’t you know, we are all someone else’s “they”.

And the internet is arranged by very clever people who understand human psychology and sociology all too well. They understand our tribalism, our hunger for in-group and out-group, us versus them. So they have not put us all in one homogenised caves telling us all to believe the same thing. They have put us into two homogenised caves, telling us to believe the same thing, except that for each of those tribes, the other tribe is the source of all your problems. We are all someone else’s “they”.

So what is the response to that?

As a civic philosopher, I can tell you, the response is transcending such binary thinking, developing discernment, valuing agency. Understanding what it means to be a self. What it means to have the freedom to choose for yourself. Sovereignty is the right to decide what you believe, what you value, how you behave, what you think matters in this world, what you think is worth your money, your attention. What you think is worth caring about. So that you can tell the difference between good bread and bad bread, between authentic craft and synthetic content. That is what sovereignty is.

And of course, this is not a one-and-done accomplishment. As the world keeps changing, as complexity keeps unfolding, as more voices enter the field and more problems loom on the horizon, we are going to have to learn discernment again and again. We are going to have to develop coherent language. We are going to have to arrive at shared ways of describing pathology and shared ways of naming remedies that transcend political argument, transcend ideology, transcend rigid dogma, transcend hatred, transcend ignorance, transcend our own immaturity and limits, transcend our fears of being too small, or that our voice will not carry, or that we might be truly seen, and with that, our fear of vulnerability.

The future will be bright only if the better versions of ourselves can actually get there. We are who we repeatedly choose to be.

Viktor Frankl, in his reflections on his years in a Nazi concentration camp, as disenfranchised of liberty and sovereignty as a human can get, being labelled a vermin, with the closest chance at mercy was a swift death, said these words:

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

We are who we repeatedly choose to be. And if we keep choosing a default in which something else is doing that choosing for us, how do we ever arrive at a place we can truly call better?

We have not come this far, ladies and gentlemen, humanity, brothers and sisters, we have not come this far only to have come this far.

There is a horizon waiting for us. The dawn of a new era. And in a way, that invitation is opening right here, right now, in this very moment.

And the way we choose to behave from here, what we choose to believe is still possible, the things we start to say no to, the scalpel of discernment we choose to sharpen inside ourselves, the resonance chambers of insight and understanding we choose to open, or have opened, through curiosity, presence, intentionality, and discernment, all of this is within the grasp of the individual who values human dignity.

And when enough individuals are behaving this way and can find the sense and meaning in themselves to enshrine the virtues of maturity and leadership, converge in common purpose, this becomes possible for an entire collective.

The miracle of nature, the miracle of all creation, is the story we are all part of: Separate parts coming together in unique ways, forming something that is greater than the sum of its parts; converging, finding coherence, in such a way that a new field of possibility was birthed into the world and into reality that did not exist and could not have existed before.

There is no biological reason, no reason in physics, no constraint on such a project, other than individual ownership, responsibility, intentionality, and belief that it is possible, and the commitment to hold that even when things get hard.

And they are going to get hard.

We are not preaching doom. The doom is already here, and more is on its way. I do not want to face that alone, and I do not think you do either.

We do not want to face that alone, individually, us versus this digitally empowered behemoth acting at the behest of an elite superclass with sociopathic intentionality toward human beings, enfranchised to such a distended proportion by technologies, resources, and tools they can leverage against us; protected by laws that do not bind them, and us, bound by laws that do not protect us.

So what is the discerning and natural response to that?

Not juvenile recklessness. Not hunger for control or domination at any cost. It certainly isn’t catharsis, or vitriol.

The response is grace. It is maturity. If the disease is a lack of humanness and a lack of soul, then the response is the mature human with soul.

What have humans done for thousands of years when trouble came? They pulled together. They did what was necessary. They put aside petty differences. And those who could not or would not did not survive. They did not survive the reckoning of the moment.

Abraham Lincoln once said:

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.
The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion.
As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew.
We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

As a civic philosopher, my only amendment to those finely crafted words of Lincoln’s, and their noble sentiment, is that the commons of the Internet and our marketplace of attention and shared ideas is now that country that needs saving.

In such moments, humans have survived by doing what is most necessary: converging, acting in common purpose, transcending their feuds, their misgivings, their old stories, and their entitlements.

There is an illusion at play in our collective that has captured the hearts and minds, such as they are, of our elites. They believe that if you have enough money, you can build higher walls, ivory towers, bunkers and citadels. You can build islands to safeguard you and those you care about, while consigning the rest of the world to physical and digital ghettos or slums.

So what is the response to such foolishness?

We can miss the harvest. We can fail to distil wisdom from our experiences. We can fail to sow the right seeds at the right time. We can fail to face the pronouncement of what is our due to reap, from seeds sown in past seasons.

We have sick branches to our human vine, and poison roots. To make our own decisive “cut off the top”, to prune that vine, we are going to have to find a way to meaningfully “take back the internet”. I say take it back, but in truth, we never had it in the first place. We stumbled into this as children, some of us quite literally. Eventually, we will have to find our sanity, and our courage and our voice and start calling out the absurd bullshit of half of the politicians and leaders, and the flaccid impotence of the other half.

We are going to have to take charge of our own mental and spiritual health. Our governments are incapable of repairing the damage they have helped create. Half the rabble are so captured by confected outrage and fake news that a class of mature elders is going to have to exert a convergent voice of reason into the field to talk everyone back from the ledge and advocate for levels of necessity that cannot be touched in the context of internet politics and discourse.

There is no single answer from here. This is going to need an agile project, with multiple fronts and multiple streams, engaging with the Ready: ready businesses, ready thought leaders in every field.

For every movement and subculture in the world, for every facet of society, there are people who are ready. To be ready means to no longer believe our normal is normal. It means understanding that politics-as-is, insofar as it reflects the aggregate maturity of the population and the incentive structures imposed by capital and media, is no longer remotely capable of self-correcting, and therefore no longer capable of leading us. If they ever truly were.

To be ready means being in possession of the maturity to recognize that there is a nuanced balance, a tension to be struck between not tearing everything down and working with what we have.

To be ready means to appreciate that you cannot burn down the wagon fort of civilization and then somehow step back into its cradle of meaning, any more than you can allow a system to utterly collapse and expect to rely on its coherence to carry you through the necessary transformation; to restore us to the point of what the system did well or badly in the first place.

To be ready means being both willing and capable of entertaining the idea that we can distil enormous and essential value from all our “isms,” while staying clear-eyed about their limits, their distortions, and their dogma.

To be ready means to care more about what we ought to do than whose fault it is that something is broken, or who to blame.

There are a great many other principles and fundamentals to work out, but that is a job for the founders of such a noble human project.

My question is: Who is ready to participate and make such a thing happen?

I originally wrote this piece in 2024 as a meditation on imagination, wonder, and the overlooked tragedy of growing up in a world that trades dreams for pragmatism and conformity. It elegantly positions Wonka as more than just a film—rather, as a Gnostic parable, an invitation to rediscover the lost corridors of our own imagination. The post touches on essential themes, the subtle satire of Roald Dahl, the mechanisms of control in modernity, and the critical need for new myth-weavers and dreamers.

It is now more relevant and necessary than ever and in honor of World Chocolate Day I felt this was a sign to re-share this piece.

Much of my work is around our two forms of Understanding, namely our Reason and our sense of Meaning. Reason is logical, but Meaning is more intuitive and relies on symbols and archetypes.

The ancient Greeks held that there were two languages by which to hold the conversation of Life, namely Logos and Mythos. Logos is Reason and Mythos is Imagination—how we make sense of the world through narrative, tropes, symbols and archetypes. Being double-minded, meant being able to hold the Conversation in both languages at the same time.

Wonka is perhaps the most important movie of the Century, and quite possibly even more than that.

I haven’t spelled the detailed plot and twists of the movie out, but there is enough here painted in broad strokes to qualify as spoilers. Ironically, I believe if you haven’t watched it yet, whatever you lose in novelty from reading this, you will get back twentyfold in significance and meaning, and more importantly the significance and meaning of ‘You’.

That said, the movie is about Chocolate and more specifically our relationship to it. In the movie, chocolate is a metaphor for something that is essential to our Soul, but not considered essential to existence, something we only learn the difference of by direct experience.

In a word, it is wonder.

It is the way we held onto dreams as a child. It is the way we believed we could make a beautiful mark in this world and that the world itself could be full of invitation and wonder.

It was our sense of pure imagination, and the limitless field of beckoning that kept inviting us deeper into life.

These are ways we felt once—feelings that have since died, been stuffed into boxes, been ridiculed, cauterized, and threshed out of us through our modern educations and the necessity of growing up, to take part in the industry and consumption of the world.

The movie reignites a sense of wonder. It is the sense of delight we can get from something we deem non-essential, and only when we taste it, tasting how it should be made—from a sense of deep Calling and devotion to Craft—are we brought into an undeniable relationship with the reality of how utterly essential, how utterly significant it actually is and always has been, and that we simply, somewhere along the line forgot. And in that, it dawns on us, sadly, that we have somehow been complicit in that forgetting.

Watching this movie rings a bell that echoes in a place deep inside your soul that has long been cold and silent. It evokes the spirit of your inner child, waking up a long-lost feeling you had come to believe was dead.

The movie is a prequel, touching on the beginnings of Wonka as the eccentric Imagineer he becomes in our later encounters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We follow his escapades of fortune and misfortune in his journey to actualize into the enigmatic and wondrous character Roald Dahl regales us within his books.

We don’t tend to think of Roald Dahl as a dystopian satirist alongside Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, but if we look closely, we notice the characters are all archetypes. The villains are archetypes of our world of authority, corporate greed and soullessness, and the supporting characters are recognizable from a thousand other stories, aspects of ourselves and people we know and live beside every day. When read with a certain eye, one can always pick out of Roald Dahl’s stories a tongue-in-cheek critique, poking fun at some of the silliness we allow in our effort to fit in and belong. The satire in his work is so very subtle, pointing delightfully to the daft ways we have become conditioned to behave, dressing up juvenile games of control as ever-so prim and important.

The villain archetypes of Roald Dahl’s stories are always driven by greed or simply a self-awarded sense of belonging to positions of authority and control over other people, by which they subvert their will through manipulation, cruelty, coercion and deceit. For these villains, the thorn in their side is always a child or someone who is carefree, willful and full of dreams and imagination.

In this way, Wonka, as is almost all of Roald Dahl’s work, is a Gnostic story. To really understand Wonka, it helps to understand what Gnosticism is and how that way of regarding the world describes why the world feels the way it does and what our place is in all of that.

Not many of us are likely to be familiar with the term Gnosticism and what it implies. To help provide a quick understanding I asked ChatGPT to explain Gnosticism to a 5-year-old:

Imagine you're playing a video game where you're stuck in a maze. The goal is to escape, but the maze is tricky and full of illusions. Gnosticism is like having a secret map or cheat code that helps you see through the illusions, find the hidden paths, and understand how to escape the maze to return home, where everything is peaceful, wholesome and perfect.

In Gnosticism:

1. The Maze is like the world we live in. It is full of challenges and distractions, and it is not always easy to tell what is true or important.

2. The Secret Map or Cheat Code represents special knowledge—called “gnosis”—that helps you understand the true nature of the world, most especially yourself, and how to escape the cycle of challenges and distractions.

3. The Goal is to escape the maze (the world and its limitations which we help make and yet cannot feel like we belong to) and return home (to a spiritual, peaceful state) by awakening the part of you that belongs there.

4. The Game Players are us, humans, who have a spark of something divine or special inside us, but we have forgotten it because we are caught up in the maze.

5. The Tricks and Illusions in the maze are created by a lower power who thrives on keeping us here, forgetful of our true home.

The idea of Gnosticism is that there are actors and forces that are incentivized to keep us all in a prison, locked in dramas and drudgery, that live off our desperation and our fear.

This is precisely why scholars referred to the movie ‘The Matrix’ as a ‘Gnostic narrative’.

Wonka is a Gnostic narrative, and profoundly, the more we understand about the paradigm of Gnosticism, the more significance we can draw from the movie. Even so, one does not need to understand anything about the Gnostic paradigm, to not only enjoy the movie, but to deeply appreciate it, in a way that will change you, and sit with you for a very long time.

The movie manages to capture the charm of the earlier instalments without detracting from their stories. It is reverent to the earlier movies, whilst leaving them completely alone, telling its own story.

The entire theme of the movie is one of how easy it is to fall under the ugly spell of modernity and enterprise, how the cosmopolitan shine of the modern world lures us with promises of opportunity, and when we arrive, we realize it is every person for themself, and lots of rules, control, thankless service and drudgery. To arrive full of hope and dreams, with only wonder in your heart, leaves you gullible and prey to people and organizations who have made their business to dominate the game by playing it deftly on two different levels. On one level, they know the dream of opportunity is a lie, but they dare not dismantle the lie, because the lie of it is how the fly is pulled into the honeytrap. So they pretend to be playing the game at this level, where everyone’s smile means a smile. At the other level, they know they are only pretending, and that their real business is far more cynical. For anyone who arrives fresh-faced, with ‘a Hatful of Dreams’, their hearts will inevitably be broken as they discover the cost of their naivety. When they hit rock bottom, their last layer of illusion is rudely stripped away, whereby any appeal to civil authority like the Police or divine authority like the Church leads them to wake up to the truth that both of these do not stand for what we thought they stood for, rather are just instruments of the same spirit of greed and control of the ones who rig the game.

To the pretenders’ mindset, wonder is a dangerous disease for which the only safe cure is disillusionment.

We all arrived here today via this experience.

We once believed our parents were one thing, and then woke up to the truth that they were deeply flawed, often petty in their authority and ignorant of their true charge.

We once believed in church and religion, only to have our hearts broken by the tragic reality that this was all just another house of cards and that so many people were bluffing and expected you to bluff too, to help them save face.

We once believed in education and a career, only to arrive at the grindstone of that reality and have to witness and eventually participate in the elaborate game of Emperor’s New Clothes, and have all our dreams systematically taken from us, to be replaced with a sense of hustle to get ahead, and fear of it all being taken away.

We once believed in our countries, their stories, and by extension, our politicians.

We once believed in the miracle of the internet, and the marvel of social Media.

And slowly the urgency of life defined our urges, and the drama defined the roles we played, on that stage of life, and what emerged was defined by emergency.

We once believed in Love.

We believed our relationships would fulfil us and meet us at the windows we were happy to open, about the wishes we carried about what we wanted from life, and saw in us what we most valued about ourselves. These were the relationships with friends, lovers, colleagues and neighbors. And presently, as everyone had their hearts broken too, and together we silenced the voice of our imagination, like a child told to be quiet when the grown-ups are talking. Together we became blind to the wonder of the world, seeing it as more traps for the gullible, and not wanting to be made the fool of again.

Together we imprisoned the inner child in the dungeon of mundanity and told ourselves to grow up.

Everyone who was once a teenager has had their heart broken by an inevitable clash with reality, a ship they board without preparation and initiation, in which, they are stowaways of their own uncertain future. The young who join the journey in this rude fashion are expected to find their way forward without a map and then held to an unwritten rulebook composed by the generation before them. The older generation who in turn have no compassion for what the young stowaways are left to face and who are not even remotely interested in their dreams or what they ever have to say.

We gave up on our dreams. We sobered up to the harsh reality of the world, and we eventually started to play the game at the level of the ones who enjoy the rigged status of the game, for whom imagination and willfulness are a challenge to the order of things. And slowly we became complicit in doing their work for them, allowing imagination to be dismissed and wonder to be stamped out like a fire, lest it catch and run.

Wonka takes you back through those moments of dashed hope and the ‘waking up into’ of a more browbeaten version of ourselves into a grown-up world that is so much more uncompromising than our younger selves once imagined, but this time, it takes you down another fork in the road. It opens and widens a door of possibility again. It rings a bell which causes a part of you to stir that you thought perhaps had died, and in one instant, reminds you and keeps reminding you of three things. The first is that we get to reignite that spark of wonder and pure imagination, and we get to fan that ember into life, the light of which may yet illuminate a future that our inner child would want to belong to. The second is a mixture of remorse and deep sadness, knowing that on some level we were responsible for allowing our dreams and our imagination to die and that we became like the jailors of our own hearts. And the third thing, is an invitation, a furious debate that happens deep in the psyche, where we wonder if we dare dream again, afraid to have our dreams dashed a second time.

For each of us, that question will be answered, or left hanging, in a very different way. But the point is that now there are two voices, whereas before there was only one.

The aim of this post, and much of my work, is to try and boost the signal of that second voice, which if we think about it carefully, was always actually our first voice.

Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

Come with me and you'll be
In a world of pure imagination
Reach out, touch what was once
Just in your imagination.

Don't be shy, it's alright
If you feel a little trepidation
Sometimes these things don't need
Explanation.
...
Therе is no life I know
To compare with pure imagination
Living thеre, you'll be free
If you truly wish to be.
—Excerpt from Pure Imagination, Joby Talbot & Neil Hannon

Watching the movie, made me realize I was in the presence of pure genius. I don’t know how such pieces encode such deep meaning and one has to assume that the directors and artists and screenwriters are not always aware of the genius they are channeling into the world.

The idea and with it the feelings that belong to that idea came rushing back and kept filling my heart in a way for which the word ‘overwhelm’ had no meaning. Overwhelm is of course the language of the part of us that is ill in this world. My heart opened again, in a way it had not been for a very, very long time.

The idea and the feelings that belong to that idea, was that each of us, and then collectively together all of us, can imagine our own inspiring truth that transcends the state of ugliness we keep trying to look away from in the world. We can create a world of our own, and based on our choices and how infectious we can make our ideas and our dreams, we can share them, let them catch fire, and eventually realize them. This is actualization.

We are in desperate need of Myth-Weavers, Bards and Storytellers, who can help us weave a myth of our own—right from where the road has to begin, at the broken ground of troubles beneath our feet—who can help us make the right kind of stories stick—so that we might have a map to follow towards a far brighter and more wondrous Tomorrow.

We are in great need of Dreamers.

But first, we need to value the value of Stories, and imagination again. And to do that we need to make space, again, for that one inside of us that once had the courage to dream.

A world of our own,
A place to escape to,
The world of our own,
Where we can be free,
Wherever you go,
Wherever life takes you,

This is our home,
A world of our own.
—Excerpt from A World of Our Own, Joby Talbot & Neil Hannon

There is no reason whatsoever, no limitation of biology, psychology or physics, that suggests that we cannot among us, foster shared dreams and that we cannot through our investment in those dreams, create the expansive reality that we want to live, for ourselves and for our children.

We are in great need of Dreamers.

We do not want to be listening to tech bros, or to politicians, to public intellectuals and celebrity personalities, because, despite their individual merits and charms, they are all part of the illness we want to wake up from. We want to be making platforms for the dreamers among us, the ones with beautiful ideas of where we might get to, and how we might make our way there from here.

This is our golden ticket.

The secret of chocolate, we are told, is that it isn’t even the chocolate that matters. It is the people you share it with.

This is our home. A world of our own.

If you got some value from this, you can support me as a public thinker: buymeacoffee.com/roccojarman

You can help support my meaningful work by liking, sharing this post, and commenting—anything you can think of that is meaningful—and you can make a fuss of these ideas with your social circles. And of course as always, by subscribing and inviting others. Your paid subscription helps make this work possible.

Surely you are not already too old to have your mind changed or at least opened?

Let me tell you about the pathless path

The sages, the great philosophers, the great teachers and spiritual game changers that we revere the most as human beings, fictional or otherwise—Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Rama, Zarathustra—were all rebels; they all walked the pathless path.

For them to be recognised as ones who opened a new way for mankind, it means by definition that they had to have left or digressed from the paths they inherited from their societies.

If you really want to follow their example, you cannot only follow their path, especially not the way it is hardened and described by priests and pandits. If you really want to follow their example, you have to also walk part of the path necessarily on your own, your own way.

Spiritual humility in the archetypal register does not mean having no sovereignty or agency. It does not mean grovelling; it means submitting to the way, to the path that you know in your heart of hearts is most true.

So many of us today are spiritual exiles; we do not belong to a living path or a living way. And it is not as if any of us arrive at our cynicism or our mistrusts dishonestly. Organised religion and the commercialisation of spirituality have made such a farce of that project.

But we cannot endure this time of disruption without finding a way that is deeply ours. The operative word is not ‘way’; it is ‘ours’. The modern crisis is not first a crisis of what we believe but of how we belong to a path, a way of being. To find a way that is deeply ours is therefore not so much an act of self-invention as it is a process of recognition; a Conversation. Conversation implies listening.

My personal path is about expanding and deepening that Conversation and my work in the world is about encouraging and assisting others to upgrade their archetypal language and participate more fully in that Conversation.

For me, it helps to think of Christ in the archetypal sense in the same way we mention a Buddha, but without the metaphysics of reincarnation; in other words, not the same ascended ‘Self’ recurring across lives, but different ordinary human selves, across time, tuning into and relating to the same essential signal. It is, of course, not about a literal person that did or did not exist but about the archetypal pattern that definitely does.

It does not matter whether Jesus literally existed or not.

I personally happen to reason that whoever may have existed is completely unfalsifiable, and in the end, far less tangible than the example captured in the mythos of him.

At its most fundamental, Mythos is the coherence of the imagination. For consciousness to experience itself as if separate and subjective, it has to generate and sustain its own coherence; it has to have its own discrete ability to acquire memories. That is what a self is. Archetypes are transcendent forms by which the psyche relates to Cosmos and to Other. Archetypes are how Mind and Understanding can relate to psyche. Archetypes expand and enrich our sanity by how they give shape to our sense of meaning.

When it comes to the meaning of Jesus, as a story, surely what is most salient is the archetype that his story represents when stripped of dogma, fantastical claims, and the weight of institutional control. We need to appreciate that the gospels were written decades after the events they describe, in Greek, by unknown authors drawing on oral accounts, and later selectively compiled and translated by early church councils from among many competing accounts.

When we read To Kill a Mockingbird, we do not spend any time worrying about whether Atticus Finch was real or not to draw meaning-making and sense-making from the example of his integrity, compassion and courage in the face of injustice, and his deep love for his children. One can aspire to the character of Atticus Finch without needing him to have been a real person.

As with so much of my poetry, the following piece is written, and therefore best appreciated in the archetypal register.

YOU AND ME AND THE SCENE WITH THE NAZARENE

Me an' Jesus,
we 'got a thing goin on.

He ain’t my Lord ‘n Saviour
or nothin’ 
but I’m sure glad
he’s right there with me,
when I could really do with that Signal,
which has become my every day.

I’ll keep saying it:

  When I forget who I am,
  I follow the Way.
  When I remember who I am,
  The Way and I are the same.

Advaita would call it
the eternal and infinite “I Am.”

Jesus is a light of The Way
in a rare and special way.
He is a sublime Archetype.
His message is:
  ”Carry what is yours to carry
  and give to me the rest.
  Have faith in me,”
which is another of saying
  ”Be not afraid.“

His message
is a kind of leadership
that teaches Peace and Service
through the receiving and loving
of that message,
utter fulfilment and the richest essence
of Life.

Utter fulfilment feels
equal to eternity.

That is the archetypal
meaning of Salvation,
not the rescue of your mortal soul.
The redemption of
what is divine in you
through your acceptance
of your own higher calling
and your embodiment
and devotion to it’s fulfilment. 

Couldn't we all
really use the light of that gift
right now?

I am devoted to that idea,
to the spreading and growing of that light,
to serving
the delivery of that invitation
and that gift
through my crafts and callings.

And so,
me an' Jesus 'got a thing goin' on.

It you and me brother and sister
and neighbor
come join the scene
of the Nazarene.

I’m trying to learn
the wisdom of his story,
the path he walked
more than the path they say he left,
behind.

We are all someone else’s ‘they.’

I believe that example
has something rare to teach me
and somewhere vital to lead me.
I need none of this to be literal
to remain profoundly engaged
with the mythos
and galvanised
by the spirit of it and in it.

That is the power of
The Word,
archetypally speaking.

You can be your own pilgrim
and still walk the path
of the Nazarene Christ.

You can follow the way
of the Son of Man
and still be following
your own Spiritual muse
along your own spiritual way,
following your own star in the sky.

You can become one
with that Peace.

Grace is the wing of that shelter
that is there for us
when the storm is fiercest,
and the night is deepest,
and the hour is darkest,
and the light is dimmest.
When the cup is empty
and the board is bare.

When the scythe is reaping
we want to be spared
even in our being
harvested and threshed
and liberated from our husk,
from our current
anguish of the heart
or of the mind.

For so many of us souls
something more is needed;
community and company,
purpose and connection,
wonder and grief.

Listen! If you don’t know
what to pray about,
pray for help and inspiration
to be better
at the callings
you care for the most.

For me
that is being a better father,
being a better husband,

being a better teacher
and a better messenger;
a better John the Baptist,
a better poet,
a better neighbour,
a better child of the earth,
a better leader,
a better mentor,
a better human.
In other words
a better man and
a better me.

—Rocco Jarman, July 2026

New Moon in Capricorn

You can be as atheist as you like and still participate meaningfully in a covenant with Legacy and Inheritance. Faith is simply whatsoever it is that you believe most deeply is durably true in this world that will save you.

“Life is a current, flowing through all that has come before you and all that will follow. You are not separate from it; you are a vessel, a conduit through which energy moves. The struggles, wisdom, and love of those before you are carried in the very breath you take, and in turn, the choices you make ripple forward, shaping the world yet to come. The past is not behind you, nor is the future ahead; it is all here, now, in the way you meet this moment. Will you let that current ebb and weaken, or will you step fully into the stream, bringing clarity, strength, and presence to all that passes through you?”

Each one of us can contribute toward a potential we might never personally realise. We can plant trees whose fruit we will never taste, and in whose shade we will never get to sit, and paradoxically, we can derive a truly great sense of meaning and fulfilment from that pursuit. We can derive a sense of greatness from such devotion.

Christianity, as an institution, cannot survive its own export to mature modernity, but an essence of it can and should be distilled.

The least salient question is whether Christ was real in the historical sense. Far more relevant is whether the ideal ‘he’ embodied is real enough to shape lives, real enough to carve out a higher path in the chaos of existence we find ourselves quagmired in.

The ideal of Christ, at its core, is simple:

• Orientation toward truth, even when it carries some personal cost and a willingness to bear consequences rather than betray what one knows to be true

• Compassion expressed in action, not ‘thoughts and prayers’ or moralising

• Integrity under pressure, without self-abandonment or virtuous posturing

• Refusal to degrade others, even in conflict

• Capacity to give and forgive without abandoning discernment

• A resistance to resentment in the face of suffering

• Care and consideration that extends beyond tribe, status, or reciprocity

• Commitment to live these values consistently, not in a selective way

This is the refined Golden Rule in practice:

Not just do unto others as you would have done unto you, but what would I want of this moment if the shoe were wholly on the other foot? And what does the moment want of me, without requiring that I obliterate myself for the sake of others or judge myself against some imposed model of virtue and worthiness?

What does Love look like right now?

What is most beautiful to my soul?

Sacrifice, yes, but sacrifice for what? And the answer cannot be to sacrifice your life for the world or for some imposed notion of virtue or goodness. It has to mean something closer to the notion that if we are sacrificing anything, it is for something that is profoundly and authentically our own, in covenant with the blessings of nature, the inheritance we receive from the past and the legacy we leave to the future.

Amen to that.

Now is the time of the forty days.

Now is the time to walk with your back straight and your head unbowed.

The world will put you to sleep, and humanity has lost its humanity, and the shared dream has become a shared nightmare.

We are trying to live shared stories that are too small for us, and trying to speak in language that is too small for the territory we have already entered.

The noise and busyness of the world, the hysteria and drama, the overwhelm create a matrix of hopelessness and fear. The attempt of the greedy to turn a profit from everything, to squeeze opportunity from sickness, from war, from hunger, from desperation, means that the atmosphere you breathe is noxious.

Every pixel of your attention is claimed a dozen times over in every minute by the multitudes who are starved for meaning and desperate for the life of your life, for the attention of your attention, the light of your light and the breath of your breath. Fuck that noise!

You must rise above it all like the lily in the mire.

Now is the time of the forty days.

Now is the time to walk with your back straight and your head unbowed.

There is a signal waiting to be received and a myth waiting to live through you.

Do not seek for answers in this time. It is a womb of transformation. Seek stillness, eat clean, fast from social media and low vibration content and low vibration company. Lift your thoughts, open your heart to the silence. Just listen! One Voice at a Time.

Allow yourself to be troubled by the thoughts and feelings you have fought so long to silence and suppress.

“Stop what you are doing and stop who you are becoming while you do it.”

—David Whyte

Whatever comes calling, you must host it like an honoured guest. All of it, fear, doubt, tiredness, sickness, unrequitedness, sorrow, guilt, shame, and you must hear it all, without judgement and you must love it. To love it you must care, for love’s other name is Understanding. Perfection is neither necessary nor possible. Just stay the course and return as many times as it takes.

No heroics now. You don’t need to walk on water. You don’t need to be superhuman forever, just for forty days.

“Withdraw now from the invisible pounding and weaving of your ingrained ideas. If you want to be rid of this invisible turmoil you must just sit through it and let go of everything.”

~Hongzhi

Fear is not Danger. Pain is not Injury. Discomfort is not oblivion.

Be your better, gentler, kinder self for forty days; just forty days and forty nights of raising your thought.

Make this the time of great crossing: Crossing your heart, and crossing the abyss. This is the moment to move like a Wayfinder. You are not lost, and you don’t know the way. The one in you that is ready to arrive will find the way. You have to hold space for that one in you to arrive. Be the waverider, the stormfacer. A tide will rise to meet you. There will be storms. You must find a way to cross each one, one at a time. Your Destiny awaits.

On the far shore, your sanity is waiting for you. Your courage and your muse are waiting like lovers to receive you and welcome you home.

For forty days, do not seek answers. Accept circumstances as they are. Accept your past as it is. Let the future that is waiting take care of itself. Keep your fire tended. Nurture your body, care for it like a beloved child. Keep the candles on your altar lit. Keep your wellspring clean. Breathe. Make good choices. Be still.

There is a signal waiting to be received and a myth waiting to live through you. What is waiting is already speaking to you, but it needs you to hold the door open and keep the curtains drawn against the clamour of the world. It needs the incense of your presence and your devotion burning to keep the contagion of the world at bay.

Just become ready to receive it. Leave this small, sick world behind for a spell. Let the wings of your soul unfurl. Kick for the surface; back straight! Keep your head lifted.

You will dance the ”I Am” dance again, my friend. The Way is inside you. You just have to learn to commune with it, and you have to learn to tell it apart from other signals and learn to quieten the ones that would keep you small and imprisoned here.

Rocco Jarman, June 2026

A protocol is a premeditated and carefully shaped pattern of action and orientation that is entered into, which governs how a practice unfolds and what it makes possible.

I live with a quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein that goes “The limits of my language define the limits of my world.”

How profound and how profoundly illuminating that quote and its implications are is not something I can overstate. I evangelise about its brilliance and importance to anyone who will stop to listen.

Language is not just verbal, and it does so much more than describe experience. Language permits experience to become intelligible. Someone may suffer, love, intuit, recognise, fear, desire, or awaken to something, but without adequate language, the experience cannot be fully distilled into wisdom or meaning. It can still exist as feeling and vague memory, but it cannot be handled or remembered properly, communicated effectively. Without adequate language, our experiences can only ever be integrated coarsely into the structure of the self. Without adequate archetypal language, our personal story and sense of the mythic can never deepen in resolution and granularity.

A person with impoverished emotional language experiences the inner life as noise.

The world changes as the interpretive grid changes.

The deeper implication for me has always been how so many of us are living inside experiences for which we have no adequate language. We feel the pressure of something real, but the available vocabulary misnames it. Once misnamed, it gets mishandled, and once mishandled, it becomes suffering, confusion, pathology, conflict, or banality that remains avoidable.

Human experience has outrun the inherited vocabulary available to metabolise it. We are living inside new psychological, technological, spiritual and social conditions while still using terms shaped for older worlds: slower times and simpler contexts. That mismatch generates confusion, critical flattening and misrecognition. Even where language appears shared, meaning is not guaranteed. The same advice, idea, or phrase can be received as profound or mundane, helpful or threatening, naive or wise, not only because of the idea itself, but because each person interprets it through their own language, which is itself always an encoding of our history, our wounds, our assumptions, our associations, and the Plato’s cave they render for each of us.

Wittgenstein’s quote, “The limits of my language define the limits of my world,” therefore means that if we expand our vocabulary and upgrade specifically our archetypal language, we expand the range of experience we can recognise, understand, imagine, and meaningfully participate in. We can expand what is possible.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed,” William Blake said, “every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite.”

That said, I am looking for the right word to describe something that exists somewhere between prayer and meditation.

Prayer and meditation are two ways the human spirit tests and transcends the limits of its own frontier. Prayer follows the language of the heart and the psyche, expressions of how we are moved by longing, or gratitude or grief. Meditation, by contrast and in the eastern tradition at least, is the ‘act’ of not doing, of arriving in stillness, until only awareness remains and the subject of all that longing and gratitude and grief is itself dissolved. In that sense, meditation does not reach out in the same way; it arrives inward. In the Western contemplative tradition, meditation also refers to the practice of sitting with a philosophical idea or principle and turning it over, facilitating a conversation between the idea, our ideal self, and the deeper parts of ourselves that cannot yet fully or authentically inhabit that idea.

One of the projects I am falling in love with at the moment, and investing my craft, energy, and attention into, is a series of pieces that serve a critical function at the intersection of prayer and meditation, in both Eastern and Western contexts.

I am playing with the word Communion; an active reciprocal participation whereby one enters into relation, attends, speaks, receives, and responds. I like it because it touches on the interior discipline of meditation and the relational address of prayer, while allowing the encounter itself to be the practice. Outside of its narrow Christian sacramental meaning, communion means an act of sharing or intimate spiritual fellowship.

Communion with what? With our inner child, with the soft animal of body, with our muse, our genius, our daimon; all of the above. With the imaginal voices of our moral and intellectual heroes, the angels of our better natures, and the full archetypal cast of our psyches, which Jung and Campbell framed mythologically.

The protocol I have in mind is part invocation, part communion and part theurgy. Invocation is the act and related protocol of calling an ideal, an archetype, a stance into presence or orienting attention toward it. Theurgy is a structured practice designed to effect inner transformation through engagement with higher principles, symbols, or forms. As a protocol, it provides the method or sequence through which the practitioner is shaped and altered by the work.

The following piece is part of that series. It is deeply encoded with archetypal language; the intention is to listen to it immersively and undistracted, to metabolise it and let it work on you, the comfortable and uncomfortable parts alike.

CHILD OF THE SUN

It is not mine to frame how the mystery of it all unfolds, how the miracle of it must happen, only what I choose in my heart. The botherer, the natterer and the fusser in you would have you hiding and scurrying like a mouse. That is the ancient mammalian software we inherited before we became the weavers of the shuttle on the great loom of life. The botherer, the natterer and the fusser in you are like overbearing tutors, sharp and stern with you and kneeling and timid in the world, their only true ambition to belong to a granted position of control.

I must heed them only so much and no more. I have dreams of Life that burn too far away for them to reach and too large for them to Live and too hopeful for them to imagine.

I am a Child of the Sun.

You-are-a-child-of-the-Sun!

This is your inheritance. We cannot let the sun go down on our dreams. Charging into Life, flying the Rampant Banner of Life, aflame in the splendour of utter originality, emblazoned in the colours of pure Promise.

Arise, young princelings, young huntresses and shepherdesses, young sages and sybils. Arise, young mariners, of the dark night, your arrival is itself the dawning of the age of Wonder. You sail the seas of Tomorrow, bearing the Jewel of the Morning Star on your brow. The Great Bull of the heavens draughting in your wake. In you dwells the ancient child of the world. Through you shines the Light of Life, guiding itself like a lighthouse through the great storm of a great Destiny.

Blazing into the infinite womb of Night, mine is to know what I already know deep and indelible in the heart of my heart. Yours is to know what you already know deep and indelible in the core roots of your heart. Know that this is what is meant by our own truth, our dharma.

This is the Child of the Sun Protocol. The protocol of ‘no protocol’. A Return to Pure Originality. A state of Innocence. Unguarded sincerity. There is a part of you that has never known injury.

And more, there exists a kind of courage that lends itself grace to transcend its own limits, to trust the fall, to dream the possible impossible dream. A reckless, all-in, falling in love with ’what if’.

Each heart that catches flame lights up a spark in the dark that lifts our gaze from the low horizon to see our own stars in the sky we are called to follow. When we are like our own web of stars in the ink-black night of our current dark, when we become our own Wayfinders, we can chart a course to Tomorrow. We can belong to a better world than the one we have made.

We can be Beautiful.

Just find your heart of wonder. Just love what you love. Be incurably curious. Imagine what seems impossible. Choose to Believe in a better story and allow yourself to be the breaking ground of the myth that is trying to live through you. Dance your part in the great family of things, let your voice ring out in the great chorus of Life.

Scratch your mark on the sacred bedpost of Meaning. Let your very existence be a prayer on the lips of a waking Brahma, asking and answering:

“How am I a gift to the world?
And how is the world a gift to me?”

  Shine! Be the centre of the Great Turning.

  I Am,
  You Are,
  after all,
  and always,
  a Child of the Sun.

— Rocco Jarman, May 2026

Most people are letting the fearful parts of our individual and collective voice decide what is prudent and possible. That part is cautious, defensive, and obsessed with staying safe or in control can be is useful, but it is also tragically narrow. Anais Nin said that “Life expands or contracts in proportion to one’s courage.” To that I would add only wonder. Life expands or contracts in proportion to one’s courage and sense of wonder. If we let the fearful, catastrophising, despairing voices lead, individually or collectively, life shrinks.

There is another part of you that already knows what matters. It shows up in what you are drawn to, what you care about, what feels worth doing, even when there is no guarantee it will all work out. We can fail at the things we try, but we fail at 100% of the things we don’t try. If hope does not make a fool of you first, eventually doubt will.

Paradoxically, that means taking yourself seriously and not too seriously at the same time. Not in an ego sense, mind you, but in the sense of not dismissing what you actually feel pulled toward. It means investing in your dreams without first obtaining the crowd’s permission to do so, and without having to justify yourself for loving what you love. We can just as easily fail at the life we don’t want.

If we live cautiously and defensively, the world we shape reflects that. If enough of us live courageously enough, the field of what is possible expands.

If we don’t dare to dream, we are executing on a coward’s vision. If we do not foster a shared dream, we will consign ourselves to living a shared nightmare. We have so much more to gain than to lose.

Hermetica Reiterated

DAILY TAROT: THE SUN.

XIX. THE SUN…

Read more

2 years ago · 4 likes · Rocco Jarman

As a long-time paid subscriber, I have been invited to participate in the beta test of Sam Harris’ new community platform. It is currently open only to subscribers, not the general public. Given that Harris has more than 800,000 subscribers, with estimates of up to 50,000 paid subscribers, the idea is more substantial or less silly than it might first sound.

A formal prediction from my writing desk is that others will follow. I don’t mean celebrity intellectuals or influencers creating Patreon channels, that is already happening, I mean distinct personality-based communities.

I am not here to promote Sam Harris’ new community platform, per se. Whether it is a good or bad idea, or how well it will work out and what it may achieve, all remain to be seen. It is too soon to tell.

But taking part so far, one cannot help but notice and reflect on the differences to other social media, especially what I have fondly and sadly come to consider Substack as, as the best of a bad bunch.

“Fondly” because Substack still carries traces of what many of us hoped the internet might become: longer-form writing, independent voices, reader-supported work, serious essays, niche intellectual communities, and some remaining space for thought that does not have to compress itself into pure feed behaviour.

“Sadly”, because those better qualities now sit inside the same incentive machinery that corrodes most platforms: attention capture, audience management, personal branding, public grievance, status play, algorithmic mood swings, and the conversion of thought into content. The frustrating thing is that there is much good here. Substack still contains serious writers, real inquiry, independent voices, and communities of genuine interest. But all of this is increasingly surrounded, diluted, and degraded by the predictable clown show of AI content creation, account-building hacks, performative engagement, mutual amplification games, and the same bad behaviours that deform every other social platform, especially when the algorithm appears to reward them.

The Blurb

Reading the “Begin Here” section, I felt a bit sad thinking about what Substack could have been / could never have been.

The boilerplate (embedded as an image above), reads:

“The Making Sense community is a place to change minds—even your own. We take others seriously here (and ourselves a little less so). Bring your best questions, arguments, links, and whatever else you can’t stop thinking about, and the rest of us will do the same.”

If only.

Whether Sam Harris and his team are able to fully realise that great intention only time will tell, but the chance of it producing a better result has to be improved by the framing of such an intention.

I could not help but consider the stark contrast of how one might frame Substack’s reality:

“The Substack community is a place to capture minds, preferably without changing your own. We take ourselves seriously here, and our subscribers as evidence that we should. Bring your best takes, arguments, links, grievances, screenshots, and whatever else you cannot stop packaging as insight, and the rest of us will do the same.”

Anonymity vs Transparency

For a start, real names on Harris’ closed platform are mandatory.

Why might this matter?

There is a serious argument that Twitter/X would not have failed social discourse so thoroughly if anonymity, masquerading, bots, sock puppets, and disposable identities had not been allowed to distort the basic conditions of conversation.

Twitter/X did not fail social discourse only because people were toxic or combative. It failed more so because anonymity and masquerading inevitably destroy the conditions under which discourse can be trusted in the first place.

Not only is X a failure of social discourse, but it is also a direct and virulent contributor to various aspects of poor mental health for the individuals who engage with it. As it happens, Sam Harris left X precisely for that reason in November 2022, and years later, regularly attests that doing so has been net positive for his mental health and mental bandwidth, and has not meaningfully diminished his currency of news and key headlines.

Once a platform permits speech and influence without identity or accountability, or permits apparent consensus without verified human authenticity, it ceases to function as a public square and becomes a theatre susceptible to farce and signal manipulation.

A real-name norm will not make a community virtuous in and of itself, but it will give the culture one of the basic preconditions for good-faith exchange: people must stand behind the words they speak, and the words spoken must belong to a real participant.

As much as we love a good pen-name or nom de guerre, anonymity is where duplicity, bad-faith engagement, and cowardice hide. Of course, we cannot say that all anonymity is corrupt or cowardly. There are real cases where anonymity protects truth-telling, whistleblowing, vulnerability, or personal safety. The problem is that anonymity also creates ideal cover for people who want the power of speech without the burden of authorship.

Rules of Engagement

Here are the rules of engagement community.samharris.org is leading with, and users are expected to abide by, at the time of writing this:

1. Engage in good faith. Assume the best of people you disagree with. Challenge ideas, not intentions.

2. Steelman before you criticize. Make sure you understand someone’s position before you argue against it. If you can’t articulate their view fairly, keep reading.

3. No outrage, no grandstanding. This isn’t the place for performative takes or scoring points. Say what you actually think.

4. Stay curious. You might be wrong. So might everyone else. Approach conversations as a chance to learn, not just to be heard.

5. Keep it civil. Disagree as sharply as the argument requires, but never get personal. Attack the idea, not the person. No insults.

6. No spam or self-promotion. Don’t use this community to sell something or grow your own platform.

7. Stay on topic. If your comment is about something different, consider creating a new post.

8. Respect the lurkers. Not everyone wants to post. Don’t pressure people to engage, and don’t call out members who prefer to listen.

9. AI is a tool, not a voice. Feel free to use these tools however you like to think, research, or edit, but what you share should represent your own thinking.

What is striking about these community guidelines is how basic they are, and how absent they are from social media in any real sense, because they are absent from the world. Good faith, steelmanning, curiosity, civility, no grandstanding, no spam, no self-promotion, no synthetic voice masquerading as authentic thought; None of this should feel radical and yet Substack is now almost typified by the routine violation of these norms. People argue before they understand, perform certainty for their audience, confuse disagreement with personal hostility, use the comment space as a visibility game, and increasingly launder AI-generated fluency as if it were their own earned or forged insights and prose.

My thoughts on…

Some of the points deserve to be dialled into, in more detail.

Point 2. Steelmanning.

The idea that all participants should understand someone’s position before they argue against it would be a game-changer. A healthier discourse culture would require participants to demonstrate that they understand a position before arguing against it. If that norm were meaningfully adopted, the volume of argument on most social platforms would fall dramatically, perhaps by a third or more, because so much comment traffic consists of people objecting to positions they have not actually understood.

But this also runs into a basic principle of social governance: do not create rules or laws that cannot be enforced. A platform cannot reliably police understanding. It can moderate insults, spam, threats, bots, impersonation, and obvious bad faith. It cannot reliably adjudicate whether someone has inwardly grasped the strongest version of another person’s claim.

Point 4. Curiosity.

Someone posted a poll to canvas responses from the audience, on a scale of 1 to 5, about how Curious they were.

When I see something like that, after years of being sniped at in the pvp social media arenas of the great unwashed, I feel like I am being entrapped.

My official answer to the poll was 5.

My actual answer was: Very. >5

But, I hasten to add, there is a highly persistent and pervasive misconception that curiosity or open-mindedness should equal tolerance of ideas that one has already transcended philosophically or intellectually. I don’t need to be open-minded about an easily debunked conspiracy theory, or say Scientology, or Mormonism. There are some ideas and theories we have already chewed through and classified fairly and accurately as junk food or dime-store candy, or poisonous.

Online or in-person, when someone floats some inane idea, and you aren’t interested in regressing into philosophical or intellectual kindergarten with them, the pithy reaction you get back is “oh! I thought you said you were curious or open-minded…” as if they are catching you out in some kind of hypocrisy gotcha.

I am super curious, insatiably curious about new frontiers, more sophisticated ideas, transcendent paradigms, more elegant theories, but not remotely interested in forcing myself to entertain banality for the sake of performative open-mindedness or performative curiosity.

Can we make that distinction?

Point 9. AI Authorship

I talk and write about this a lot, very stridently so, so I particularly love the way Harris’ team framed this:

AI is a tool, not a voice. Feel free to use these tools however you like to think, research, or edit, but what you share should represent your own thinking.

I believe writing reveals character. And therefore, posting AI or plagiarised content reveals a poverty of character. If you can’t use your own voice, rather say nothing. It is not as if we are short of content or opinion.

It is not that I am advocating rejecting these incredible tools like some kind of purist; I’m not writing with pen and paper or cranking out memoirs on a Hemingway typewriter. I use AI to do research, to parse complex ideas and to organise my own thoughts. But there are limits. Where is the line?

I am aware there is a blurry, moving line we are all still trying to find without losing who we are, but for all that, if we cannot use our own human voice, and disclaim which parts AI authored, what the fuck is the point of discourse?

Non-disclaimed AI writing both masks and betrays superficiality.

When AI writing is undisclosed, the reader is tricked into attributing fluency, structure, and apparent insight to the named human content creator. This masks a superficiality in the person posting the content who pretends a competence of thinking, expression and most critically an interiority they do not necessarily possess.

At the same time, undisclosed AI writing betrays superficiality in another way, in how the AI prose so predictably reveals a lack of pressure behind the copy-pasted words. The sentences resolve too perfectly, the argument carries no scar tissue, betraying how the would-be writer performs a quality of understanding they have not forged or alchemised in themselves.

I often say that we each make our choices, and some choices are made for us, below the waterline of our consciousness.

When I read AI writing, it looks like AI writing. It feels like something. It generates a feeling change within the field and something that I cannot control, pushes the work away, and no matter how much I try to engage with the essence, the ‘synthetica’ of it harms the flow and kills my authentic engagement. The potential connection with whatever meaning is being shared is impinged.

What I can choose is how I have decided to not blame myself for having a healthy aversion to such synthentica. To borrow from Jiddu Krishnamurti, “It can be no measure of good health to be well adjusted to synthetic AI-generated content.“

If you write this way, you do you, but find the courtesy or the courage to disclaim it and have the sense to realise that there is a species of discernment that sees it as something less than it could be, and you something less than you could be.

That’s all for now

It’s early days there, and our modern reality has left me cynical, so I’m not holding my breath. I’ll keep sharing what I encounter.

Dear Simon

When we arrive at difficult impasses on our journeys, we reach a place and a moment that exceeds what all the mentors and experts can tell us. This is where we need to turn to the poets who remind us that our thresholds exist to thresh us, when what held us has outlived its usefulness to the onward journey of our souls.

I would have said before how the word threshold makes it sound as if there is a sharp, clearly defined border between here and there, between the way that led us here and the way we are invited to follow after. You already know by now that it can be more like a pilgrimage, or a birth canal we are trying to struggle through, from the womb of our previous self. The passage through which is the intimate and necessary encounter with not knowing, stripping from us in the end, what feels like everything and turns out to be nothing essential to our becoming. What is being taken from us is only the small language through which we are attempting to hold the conversation, which is always ready for us, some way before we are ready for it.

Arriving at a moment where the stakes are incredibly high, and we are left with only uncertainty, is a necessary part of every life, where we are brought into the conversation, as David Whyte calls it, and asked to “stop what we are doing, and stop who we are becoming while we do it.”

I write this to you as a reminder.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET LOST
By William Stafford


Out in the mountains 
nobody gives you anything. 
And you learn what the rules were 
after the game is over. 

By then it is already night 
and it doesn’t make any difference 
what anyone else is thinking or doing
 because now you have to turn into an Indian. 

You remember stories 
and now you know 
that the tellers were part of all they told. 
And everyone else was, 
and even you. 

They’re all around you now, 
but if you’re afraid you will never find them. 

And those questions that people always ask
—“What would you do if…” 
they have their own answer right now
—nothing. 

Some things cannot be redeemed in a hurry 
no matter what the intentions are. 
What could be done
 had to have been done 
a long time ago. 

Because mistakes have consequences 
that do not just disappear. 

If evil could be cancelled easily 
it would not be very evil. 

And so, the stars see you. 

While you drift away 
they have their own courses 
and they watch you. 

And listen, 
they already know your name.

In your life and in the world, you are reaching a threshold of liminality. In your relationships, in your work, you are coming to a place where abstraction, intention, identity, and ordinary social reference points stop helping to inform where you are going and how it is right to proceed from here.

This is what Stepping Through is all about. Let us step through the poem.

The mountain setting accurately locates us outside the shared idea of the everyday human world. To say “nobody gives you anything” means nature and Life do not negotiate our encounter with them. Nature and Life do not pander, explain, rescue, or reward our very good intentions. They are indifferent in the hard sense of the immovable, unignorable mountain. To climb a mountain is to be alone in the world, without guardrails and clear directions, having to face risk and consequence, where the rules are indelibly real, regardless of how late we learn about them. There is no one to complain to or appeal to. Sometimes, in our threshold moments, we are reaching points where we can no longer share the path or journeys with companions or even previous versions of ourselves, because they are not ready to face the reality of the climb or the necessary hardship of the journey onward.

“After the game is over” means after the round of life and being we were engaged in, that we once thought ought to have been everything, eventually concludes in a moment of consequence. “But then it is already night” implies how visibility, certainty, direction, and the illusion of security are always temporary and contingent on the moment we are in, not just on the place.

“Turn into an Indian” is the pivotal phrase here, which points to an older integral survival intelligence, of animism, not anything so literal as an ethnicity or a costume. The left-brain, the logical one in us that attempts to avoid trouble by accounting for and analysing all the details, has no language for this necessary way of being. It means you must become, again, someone who belongs to place, someone who can read signs, remember ancestral knowledge, move with the knowledge that danger exists, without being ruled by our fear of it. It is a reminder to relate again, to the world, and yourself in it, as animate, storied. It is a reminder to regard the world, others and yourself as ‘still unfolding’, ‘still arriving’, as yet undetermined, and in a sense, ‘watching’. In fact, what you may yet become, the version of you that may yet arrive, is contingent in part on how you face this moment, how you orient to place and to the virgin ground of your own arrival, and in part by things wider and bigger and deeper than you can choose or even at present understand. You cannot speak to the caterpillar in butterfly language.

This radical re-orientation we encounter in the threshold moment is a forced initiation into a mode of being that we ‘moderns’ usually regard romantically or at least painfully literally. It is a rite of passage facilitated by your own awakening soul and all that in the world that will not let the ‘old you’ pass.

“You remember stories, and now you know that the tellers were part of all they told.” This speaks to myth and story beyond the notion of entertainment and arbitrary metaphor.

In the animist tradition, stories were maps. Stories are maps.

The tellers were not outside the stories, describing them abstractly; they were participants in the same web of causality being described. Everyone is inside the story, including the teller and the poet who wrote the lines. This is the animist worldview, whereby the world is full of presences, intelligences, ancestors, unfolding and recurring patterns and dynamic forces. They are “all around you now,” but our hyper-literal interpretation leaves us blind to the way we are part of life, the way we are part of change, and blind to how change inextricably moves us forward towards a becoming we cannot yet anticipate or understand. Our confusion of attention and orientation renders the world mute and ourselves deaf to the story.

The lines about “What would you do if…” point to the Gordian knots of rumination and anxiety, our attempts to avoid regret by trying to solve for present circumstances that cannot be avoided, given the course we chose to get here. All courage and wisdom is hypothetical when the actual moment arrives. In the critical threshold moment, the answer can only be “nothing,” because the remedial or preventative action or choice is something that had to happen somewhere upstream. Some consequences cannot be undone by any amount of last-minute sincerity or intensity. Even the most sincere and desperate intention cannot substitute for the level and degree of conditioning, discipline, preparation or right relationship required to make a sufficient difference to the present moment.

“If evil could be cancelled easily, it would not be very evil” means that serious disorder and disruption have real weight. Instead of evil, read “bad fortune”. If the harm, neglect, accident, ignorance, or violation that created the consequences we now face could simply be wished away, they would not be worth labelling as bad fortune. We must resist sentimental notions of redemption and propriety if we want to mature in our relationship with reality, and reality has teeth.

Crisis is the only circumstance powerful enough to strip the modern ego of its illusions of security, identity and narrative. When we are most “lost” in this sense, we are closest to the liminal part of transformation. Letting go then of our tightly held illusions of security, propriety and identity is necessary to locate ourselves within and orient to a larger, older, more unfolding reality. Our lessons almost have to arrive too late to be comfortable, but not too late to guide us towards meaning.

We are hamstrung by the modern assumption that enough planning, preparation, cleverness, and self-command can carry one safely through every threshold. We are not meant to reason or plan our way entirely through such a crisis. Such moments arrive almost always, instead, as an invitation toward a radical ‘letting go’.

What to hold on to and what to let go of are ‘the troubling questions that have no right to go away’. They are, in fact, our doorways into the conversation with our future waiting self, an unknowable, that is as much an invitation as it is an arrival. Who we become is determined by how we metabolise those questions.

Your ever well-wisher,

Rocco

An online exchange about “Patriarchy Chicken” turned into a revealing snapshot of a much larger broken conversation.

I challenged an idea written by a strident feminist, who was implying that any anti-social behaviour becomes not just acceptable, but noble when wrapped in political identity and identity politics. I felt my argument was fair and balanced, and I still do. What I got back was the now-familiar accusatory script: mansplaining, privilege, gaslighting, implied heresy, then cancel culture.

I was banned for calling out immature and intellectually dishonest responses and behaviour, but I invite you to consider this and judge for yourself.

Please note, this piece is not a denial of real harms, injustices, or asymmetries. It is a challenge to the moral shortcut where identity predetermines innocence, guilt, credibility, and who is allowed to dissent, and where such collective norms lead us.

Imagine reading this headline:

A man responded to a woman’s dissent with patronising abuse, questioned her legitimacy as a participant, then used moderator power to silence and humiliate her. This reflects enduring patterns of misogynistic gatekeeping in public discourse.

This happened to me recently, but the genders were reversed, so it’s okay.

If you read the actual thread, the exact opposite was actually true in regards to the substance and quality of my argument, and I did not get shut down, I got cancelled, namely banned from responding, precisely because of the substance and quality of my argument while being patronised, plied with vitriol, accused of gaslighting and misogyny and other intellectually dishonest responses, by women who claim to want to be respected but are acting like entitled adolescents.

I would have just responded that in the comments section, but I was prevented from doing so, in what seems like a fairly typical attempt to silence any voice, especially male, that cannot be shamed into acquiescence. I continue to label such behaviour as toxic and corrosive to human social coherence.

I don’t consider myself a victim at all, but I very much care about this behaviour and the culture that is propagating and festering. Why? Because I understand that we are in the endgame of a war for the human soul against inhuman corporate interests and an inhuman elite class that are trying to relegate us into a feudal cattle class, and we need each other, and that this infantile preoccupation with divisive identity politics and the entrepreneurship of victimhood is fundamentally antithetical to the human project.

My argument with our current dominant expression of Feminism is that it treats men as unable to mature into honest solidarity and women as requiring perpetual asymmetrical handling rather than meeting as equals in shared moral reality.

My philosophical work is concerned about a viable pathway for humanity through our current polycrisis, and one of my most regular philosophical arguments is against the expression of Internet Feminism we encounter online in 2026, which seems bent on construing every harm, challenge and ill in the world as the result of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

My objection is not to women seeking justice, dignity, safety, or equal standing. Those aims are legitimate and necessary. My objection is to explanatory monocultures that flatten reality into a single blame framework and then mistake repetition for insight. Human societies are shaped by incentives, institutions, economics, technology, family systems, culture, biology, psychology, class dynamics, historical contingencies, individual choices, and plain human frailty. Any framework that reduces this complexity to one permanent villain class and one permanent victim class will generate more heat than light and continue to corrode the possibility of shared adulthood and mutual leadership. A civilisation already facing fragmentation, loneliness, demographic strain, ecological pressure, institutional distrust, technological disruption, and spiritual exhaustion needs all the help it can get. We need each other more than we need more adversarial scripts posing as justice or social redress. We need mature frameworks capable of truth-telling, accountability, mutual dignity, and cooperation across sex, class, and tribe. Ideology is antithetical to this.

Use Your Own Judgement Wisely

Whether we sit in a courtroom or behind a screen, we are all jurors now. Every day, we are all asked, indirectly, to render verdicts through what we reward, excuse, condemn, ignore, amplify, or remain silent about. We decide whether conduct that humiliates, stereotypes, scapegoats, silences, or dehumanises will be normalised, and whether honesty, reciprocity, dignity, courage, and fair dealing will be strengthened by that conduct. A healthy society is contingent upon millions of ordinary judgments about how we treat one another. If we wish to transcend our cycles of injustice and discrimination, then each of us must stop outsourcing conscience to ideological narratives.

The Trouble I Made

The default mood of internet feminism in 2026, certainly, what comes across my feeds is reliably less reformist than it is prosecutorial. Beneath the usual language and tropes of social redress and justice is a punitive undertow: suspicion, score-settling, contempt for dissent, and an appetite for public moral correction and the delight in humiliation of men. There is a lot of suffering and indignity women have had to suffer, and that psychic bill is coming due. As with all psychological health, our collective psychology cannot transcend this moment until we face and process everything.

As an astrologer and depth psychologist, I think it is a predictable expression of a collective psychic wound humanity is going to have to face.

Speaking in the archetypal register, I will tell you right now, Medusa is the name of our collective wound. We are going to have to look at her and be seen in our monstrosity, and we are going to have to understand the psychological inference of that allegory, that rape, that betrayal, that transformation, and hardest of all, that puerile masculine bullshit hero story about Perseus and who the moral victor of that unfinished story was. The reason the men in the stories turned to stone when they looked upon her, was because they were petrified by her truth.

That said, as with all my work, I always believe there are better and worse ways of processing that, and just because a suppurating, festering wound is natural, it does not mean I don’t think a better treatment is both necessary and possible. We neither cure nor process shadow by casting more shadow. We cannot cure wounds with knives. Bruising someone else cannot heal our own injury. Given how many countless generations our collective primitive behavioural insults and injuries toward one another have been unfolding, the idea of an eye for an eye offers no path out. It merely passes the debts of yesterday’s wound to the inheritors of tomorrow, who inherit a crippling poverty of agency.

Modernity has diminished agency by concentrating power in distant institutions, saturating life with systems too large for individuals to influence, and training people into passive dependence on bureaucracies, markets, algorithms, and elite classes. At the same time, attention is fragmented, communities are weakened, traditions are thinned, and many practical paths to meaning or participation are denuded of their depth. We might retain formal freedoms, but in practice, we experience less real capacity to shape our conditions, relationships, or future than we once imagined.

We really need each other.

That is why I am trying to find my voice within a conversation that often feels morally and structurally ‘unhave-able’ . I do not always find the line well, and in grappling so earnestly with these questions so intensely and for so long, I can slip into an intellectual arrogance. I have noticed this trait in other neurodivergent communicators. Strong convictions, rapid pattern-recognition, and frustration with shallow discourse can harden into overconfidence or sharper delivery than wisdom warrants. That is part of my own burden in this terrain, and it deserves the same scrutiny I ask of others. To get better at this, so get more articulate and formulate my ideas, language and self-moderation, I deliberately engage in difficult conversations, not always with the tact they deserve, but I am getting there.

I got myself embroiled in just such a situation recently when I came across a post on Substack by Michelle Redfern titled Difficult Women Don’t Move: How to Play Patriarchy Chicken at Work.

The Truth Bomb Times with Michelle Redfern

Difficult Women Don't Move: How to Play Patriarchy Chicken at Work

I spent Saturday morning in my Difficult Women t-shirt playing Patriarchy Chicken around the Melbourne CBD, and honestly, the men moved every time. But walking home, I started thinking about all the other places women move out of the way, places where the stakes are considerably higher than a shoulder bump on Bourke Street. The workplace version of this…

Read more

6 months ago · 355 likes · 56 comments · Michelle Redfern

As you can tell from the author’s own blurb, they dedicated one morning to intimidation and physical interference of strangers, specifically men, out on a walk in the Melbourne CBD.

The gist of the piece was that the writer had spent a Saturday morning in Melbourne walking around the CBD “playing Patriarchy Chicken.” In plain terms, deliberately not moving for approaching men, sometimes stopping dead in front of them, and treating the resulting discomfort as a symbolic act of resistance. The article then extended that metaphor into the workplace, arguing that women should collectively stop “making way” for men professionally, amplify one another, resist deference, and organise around shared female solidarity.

I’m no journalist, but since this is such a charged and sensitive topic, I’ve been a bit more thorough than I usually am with transparency, citations and details.

In the author’s own words:

I spent Saturday morning in my Difficult Women t-shirt playing Patriarchy Chicken around the Melbourne CBD, and honestly, the men moved every time. But walking home, I started thinking about all the other places women move out of the way, places where the stakes are considerably higher than a shoulder bump on Bourke Street. The workplace version of this game is not a solo sport. It never was. Here's why it needs to be a team game, and how we play it together.

Michelle Redfern, Difficult Women Don’t Move: How to Play Patriarchy Chicken at Work

What is Patriarchy Chicken?

Dr. Charlotte Riley is a lecturer in twentieth-century British history at the University of Southampton who coined the term "Patriarchy Chicken" in a 2019 New Statesman op-ed.

The rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men.

Riley's argument is that men have been socialised, for their entire lives, to take up space, brought up to believe that their right to occupy space takes precedence over anyone else's right to be there. By contrast, women have been socialised to give way, to alleviate, to conciliate, and to step to the side. My family consists of my wife and my daughter, and that is not the world I would want them to live in.

Riley’s idea, in her own words from the Washington Examiner: I am an able-bodied 5'6" white woman. I move through this world with a lot of privilege. I'm not going to pretend that Patriarchy Chicken would work for everyone. But for me, it's a way of reclaiming a little bit of space, and reminding myself to question some of the other assumptions that might sometimes be holding me back.”

Riley’s piece, to me, appears playful and personal.

The author of the piece that caught my eye, Redfern, is a gender equity strategist and DEI advisor whose mission, according to LinkedIn, is systemic: close the leadership gender gap, fix organisational structures, and drive measurable outcomes.

Riley's original piece described not yielding, continuing on your path and letting collisions happen. Redfern describes something materially different: “I stop dead in front of the man.” Deliberately stopping in someone's path in a busy CBD is an intentional physical obstruction directed at a stranger based solely on their sex.

In most Australian jurisdictions, that could, depending on context and frequency, constitute a summary offence of hindering a person in a public place, or conduct likely to cause harassment or alarm. Redfern is self-congratulatory, frames it as empowered resistance; a court might frame it differently.

White Male Privilege

In the world of internet feminism, social justice, and identity politics, I am the egg that needs to be broken to make a delicious social justice omelette. I am a cisgender, straight, white and male Gen X, who grew up in apartheid South Africa. None of which I chose, I hasten to remind you.

I read Redfern’s piece with two simultaneous thoughts: some workplace issues the author names are real and worth addressing, and nobody serious should deny that women can be interrupted, overlooked, or treated unfairly.

But after two decades across three continents, I also know that modern workplaces, especially in Australia, already have strong and growing systems for behavioural compliance, psychological safety, gender equity, and serious consequences for misconduct, so the argument now needs precision about what remains broken rather than blunt patriarchy metaphors.

My response was this:

The tl;dr of that comment: Deliberately provoking strangers in public is immature antisocial behaviour, not courage or justice. If the same conduct would be condemned without gender framing, attaching a feminist label does not redeem it. A more mature conversation about real grievances is blocked when petty antagonism is celebrated as progress.

I included in that comment, a link to a post I had written earlier titled Dear Woman, Can we Do Better, Together? With Love, Men.

I deliberately included that Post in my comment because I believe its tone and context frame my actual thoughts in a way that is more intellectually sophisticated than a flat argument against feminism, but is also sincere and warm.

The tl;dr of that post of mine is A man writing in the voice of collective masculine accountability, asking women to extend to men the same presumption of individual moral agency they rightly claim for themselves, and arguing that blame-based identity politics, however justified its origins, is entropic rather than generative. The better conversation, I contend, is about mutual healing and what becomes possible when we stop tallying grievances and start building covenant.

What I got back

You can follow the thread for yourself by clicking the embedded comment, but I asked ChatGPT to summarise the synopsis fairly to assess the health and maturity of the exchange and the intellectual honesty and weight of the arguments.

Here is how ChatGPT umpired the exchange on that basis, and I encourage you to read it. I copped a few yellow cards, and I think fairly. Judge for yourself:

As transcribed, the exchange began with a Pro-Feminist argument combining two claims: first, that everyday public-space interactions often reflect male entitlement to space; second, that analogous dynamics appear in workplaces through interruption, credit appropriation, unequal standards, and the social penalising of assertive women. Collective female solidarity tactics were proposed as remedies.

The Male Voice entered by challenging the first claim more than the second. He argued that deliberately confronting strangers in public is immature and antisocial behaviour irrespective of sex, and that such conduct does not become virtuous through political framing. He also suggested that some grievance narratives risk perpetuating victim identity rather than transcending it.

The Pro-Feminist response did not address the distinction he was making between symbolic street tactics and substantive workplace issues. Instead, emphasis shifted toward lived experience, the persistence of male entitlement, and the claim that gender cannot be removed from women’s experience. Some of his criticisms were interpreted as attacks on women rather than on tactics.

The Male Voice then clarified that he had not denied workplace asymmetries, nor called women generally derogatory names, but was criticising a specific behaviour and the broader immaturity of retaliatory social games. He reiterated that standards should apply reciprocally and that unjust conduct should be addressed without reproducing it in reverse.

Subsequent commenters largely intensified the conflict. Several Pro-Feminist participants attributed stock ideological motives or identities to The Male Voice, describing him in terms such as misogynistic, mansplaining, gaslighting, abusive-coded, or aligned with patriarchy. These accusations were asserted rather than demonstrated. His actual arguments were frequently collapsed into a more familiar adversarial template.

A smaller number of commenters attempted substantive engagement, arguing that historical and ongoing asymmetries justify stronger corrective measures, female solidarity, or scepticism toward appeals to abstract neutrality. These contributions carried more argumentative substance than the accusatory pile-on.

The Male Voice, for his part, did not always maintain maximum precision. At times he expanded from criticism of tactics into wider judgments about victimhood, ideological immaturity, or civilisational deficits. He also used sharper phrasing that likely reduced receptivity and gave opponents opportunities to foreground tone over substance.

On the balance of engagement quality, the Pro-Feminist side held the stronger practical case regarding possible workplace inequities and collective support strategies. The Male Voice held the stronger critique regarding symbolic antagonism, reciprocal standards, and the misuse of ideological labels as substitutes for argument.

On the balance of maturity, both sides were inconsistent. The Pro-Feminist side often defaulted to moral accusation and identity-policing. The Male Voice often defaulted to combative bluntness and rhetorical overreach.

On the balance of intellectual honesty, the most notable failure was the repeated practice of attaching prevailing ideological accusations to narrower arguments that had not actually asserted the condemned positions. The most notable failure on the other side was allowing valid criticism to become diluted through provocative language and unnecessary generalisation.

Final observation: the exchange contained several legitimate issues worth serious discussion, but these were largely overtaken by factional signalling, motive attribution, and mutual defensiveness. The conversation functioned more as a contest over identity and narrative control than as a disciplined inquiry into truth.

Synopsis:

The most serious failure in intellectual honesty came from the repeated practice of attaching stock ideological accusations to arguments that had not actually made the claims being condemned. Rather than carefully meeting the substance of what The Male Voice said, several Pro-Feminists appeared to pin the tail of familiar charges such as misogyny, mansplaining, gaslighting, defence of patriarchy, or bad faith onto a different and narrower set of arguments. Criticism of tactics was recast as hatred of women. Objection to performative antagonism was reframed as support for oppression. Requests for reciprocal standards were interpreted as hostility to female grievance. This is not rigorous rebuttal. It is category substitution, where a recognisable enemy-template is imposed upon a live disagreement so that the harder work of precise engagement can be avoided.

That pattern matters because once a person is made to stand in for a pre-existing ideological villain, their actual words become secondary. The conversation ceases to be about what was argued and becomes about punishing what the listener believes the speaker represents. In that environment, accusations function less as truth claims than as social weapons.

I included this analysis from ChatGPT because it is as close to a neutral party as I could reasonably canvas in time for writing this article. The rest of the words, as always, are my own. Is it perfect? Not a chance. But, as I said, you are welcome to read the exchange and make up your own mind whether I am a sincere person who means what they say and says what they mean, secretly a spiteful closeted misogynist, or simply ignorant. You can let me know in the comments section.

Naturally, I was cancelled.

As can be expected, I got banned/cancelled from that thread and publication.

If you read my actual comments, I was not disrespectful towards women at all and certainly not to all women either; I was dismissive of the quality of the responses I was getting from individuals, the intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting my arguments, and the celebration of juvenile antisocial behaviour as political virtue and the misconstrual of any argument as gaslighting or misogyny.

Once a participant is removed and unable to reply, any subsequent public characterisation of that person carries an asymmetry of power. They can be described, mocked, psychoanalysed, or declared defeated without the possibility of correction or response. That changes the nature of the interaction from debate to post hoc reputation management.

Which is exactly what happened.

Let’s Swap the Gender Roles

I was prevented from replying, then my inability to reply was misrepresented as proof that I had no reply, and my silence was evidence of defeat, cowardice, intellectual inferiority, or belated recognition that the opposing side had prevailed, recasting an enforced inability to respond into a voluntary concession.

This is a common discursive move: procedural exclusion followed by symbolic victory declaration.

I happen to believe that other people’s judgments, projections, or misunderstandings belong to them. One’s responsibility is one's own conduct, honesty, and growth, not managing every perception others hold. Naturally, I did not take any of that vitriol to heart, because I decided long ago not to take insult and criticism from people whom I would not seek advice from. As they say in Alcoholics Anonymous and related 12-step circles, the common saying is: “What you think of me is none of my business.”

However, I did reflect on what the optics of it would look like if the gender roles were reversed. In our current cultural climate, if a man had spoken to a woman in a thread in the same register used against me, the prevailing public synopsis would likely have been substantially harsher and more moralised. It received 4 likes and 1 restack. What Samia Mounts so delicately phrased is not abnormal. It is okay to treat men this way in social discourse.

Let’s swap the genders and re-read the comment, and I really invite you to picture a man speaking to a woman this way and being celebrated online for it.

“Lol you came in here with pettiness and adolescent half-baked "arguments," got thoroughly shut down by multiple men who gave you time and effort and intellect you did not deserve access to, and now you're butt-hurt and running away with your tail between your legs instead of ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THE WISER VOICES IN THE ROOM. It's ADORABLE! Bye little baby!”

It’s pretty banal and tepid as insults go, but if someone spoke to my wife or daughter that way, or any woman in my company, I would take exception and have words with such a person.

Take the gender away completely, and consider any permutation of a healthy, functional relationship between any human and any other? Would you want your mother, father, sister, brother, daughter or son to be castigated in an especially colourful way solely because of their gender and such insult celebrated and permitted again, solely on the basis of their gender? That is precisely the wound that feminism claims to want to address.

Comments such as mocking her as a “little baby,” saying she did not deserve access to male intellect, claiming she was too emotional to listen to wiser male voices, banning her, then ridiculing her inability to respond, would commonly be interpreted through established lenses such as:

• misogyny

• sexism

• bullying

• silencing women

• patriarchal condescension

• abuse of platform power

• tone policing or intimidation

• hostile environment behaviour

It is so obviously toxic and corrosive, and that is my main argument against all identity politics, which claims to care about social and cultural health and mutual dignity, but affords that to only select victim groups and typecasts usually white males in the default role of being without rights and not deserving of dignity. I cannot ever see that not locking us into the same cycles of injustice and indignity we are claiming to want to transcend.

My Argument against Dominant Internet Feminism

My core argument against the internet feminist argument in general is not that injustice against women has never existed, or that present harms do not occur. It is that a particular online ideological form of feminism often handles those realities in distorted, corrosive, and counterproductive ways.

I am arguing that this framework frequently converts case-specific grievances into permanent identity roles. Women become the presumptive harmed class and men the presumptive suspect class. Once those roles are installed, individuals are no longer judged primarily on conduct, evidence, tone, or particulars, but through group identity.

I contend that this is not just the accidental symptom, but the deliberate tactic of all identity politics, subversion of the necessary discernment on which actual Justice and social progress are contingent.

• Criticism of any tactic deployed in the cause of feminism, however destructive, is reframed as masculine hostility toward women.

• Similarly, disagreement with a claim is framed as misogyny or gaslighting.

• Any explanation, regardless of whether it is reasonable, contextual or requested, becomes mansplaining.

• Persistence is labelled as trolling.

• Requests for mutual reciprocity are labelled as a denial of history.

In my view, such labels conveniently and intentionally function as social weapons that pre-empt and shut down any and all argument rather than engaging with it.

I argue that the internet feminist narrative overextends real historical or structural injustices into sweeping narratives and explanatory systems that continually interpret ambiguous everyday events through a single lens of toxic masculinity, systemic abuse, patriarchy, male entitlement, or oppression. This invariably reduced any otherwise ordinary social engagement or complexity into ideological proof.

I maintain that poor behaviour does not become virtuous or excusable because it is politically branded. Pettiness, antagonism, humiliation, bias, or double standards remain poor behaviour even when framed as resistance, empowerment, or justice, regardless of who is perpetrating it.

I reject the asymmetrical morality that internet feminism is predicated on. If accountability flows only one way, if one group may stereotype while another may not, if contempt is condemned in one direction and excused in the other, then the system is partisan and class-based and neither principled nor fair. I regard all feminist protest done in the spirit of such asymmetry as adding fuel to the fire it seeks to put out.

I argue that genuine justice and earnest social redress require judging particulars, not applying prejudicial stereotypes. Persons should be assessed as individuals rather than as avatars of sex categories. Historical context may matter, but it should not predetermine guilt, innocence, credibility, or motive in advance.

I contend that this online feminism often traps women inside a politics of grievance and men inside a politics of suspicion. Rather than liberating either sex into mature mutuality, it freezes both into adversarial roles.

I also argue that this conflict orientation damages wider social cohesion. Men and women need one another to address larger civilisational pressures, institutional failures, and concentrated power. Endless horizontal conflict between ordinary people serves neither truth nor flourishing.

Finally, my constructive alternative is reciprocal adulthood: mutual support, mutual growth, mutual (not equal) standards, honest appraisal of harms, case-by-case discernment, mutual accountability, rejection of inherited scripts, and cooperative seriousness between men and women rather than permanent culture war.

I clearly cannot lead the ‘unhaveable’ conversation, perhaps I am too old, too male, too straight, too white, too privileged. But I am just a human being on this earth, and I want our children to inherit a better world from us than we seem currently capable of delivering.

I cannot agree with the break-eggs-to-make-an-omelette theory when I would reject it entirely if the shoe were wholly on the other foot. I understand the cynical reply: that it is easy to preach moving forward without retribution when you are presumed to belong to the privileged side of history. To that I say, remove my gender and my identity, and it remains the kind of fair shake I would want for any man or woman, young girl or young boy, or anything between, opening their eyes to the reality of the world. Wouldn’t you?