The MetaMind

...or the meal with the menu. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

How can a 2-dimensional codified drawing give the feel, the atmosphere, of real terrain? How can a description prepare one for the taste of food? How could a body-part be mistaken for the astronomical body to which it points? Obviously, nobody falls into these traps. And yet they do. The overwhelming majority of people fall into just these traps when it comes to that overarching entity, their worldview!

We're talking here about models. Models are tremendously useful in context: in the realms of communication and technology, for instance, they may greatly aid in understanding and provide a convenient framework on which to hang concepts. But no theory or model can fully describe its subject: the necessary simplifications it provides are at the core of its utility.

What's on offer?

So, what kinds of 'worldview' do we have to choose from? A rough and by no means exhaustive selection:

• religious


• Christianity


• Islam


• Hinduism


• Judaism


• political


• conservative


• socialist


• fascist


• communist


• liberal


• anarchist


• scientific/rational


• quantum


• relativity


• humanism


• spiritual/esoteric


• Buddhism


• Taoism


• new age


• animism


• conspiracy


• matrix


• illuminati


• aliens


• holographic (more of this later)

Of course, these are not themselves worldviews but the components used to build them, a kind of philosophical pick 'n' mix.

The error of truth

Clearly, according to conventional logic, there are many oppositions within the list. If we keep in mind at all times that these are models, there need be no conflict. The trouble occurs when we begin to conflate our preferred model(s) with the idea of an absolute truth. Now, anything that doesn't conform is wrong and must be stamped out, right/wrong duality being one of the fundamental inculcations of the 'education' system. The existence of an absolute truth per se is a separate point of consideration and not relevant here. What matters is that a model, by its nature, cannot be equal to that which it describes.

The error of identification

The error of truth is greatly exacerbated by a further error, that of identification. But: you are not your worldview. 'Fight Club' aficionados will recall Tyler Durden's memorable speech: "You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis." And so, if someone disagrees with your worldview, insults it even, so what? That's not you! This corresponds closely to the Second Agreement in Don Miguel Ruiz's 'The Four Agreements' - "Don't take anything personally". So simple, yet apparently so difficult to implement for most: failure to do so may become the basis for hatred and even wars.

The source of error

At root is our old nemesis, fear. But as with all cases, it pays to study the mechanism by which that fear manifests as these fundamental errors.

Educational inculcation has already been mentioned, but it may go even deeper than this, as far as psychological imprinting. Religious instruction and patriotism would be possible examples of this, the essential characteristic being powerful positive/negative reinforcement techniques, the sharp end of carrot-and-stick.

Also implicated is social conditioning, the comfort of being a part of a larger unit, of belonging, whether to a political or religious affiliation, or a secret society. And this is simply displaced desire to return to the one source, the origin of all that is manifest, what David Bohm terms the 'Implicate Order', what may, with correct preparation, be glimpsed at the heart of the psychedelic experience.

The model, instead of being a mere tool to aid understanding, becomes a lens through which all experience is refracted, becomes a set of rules by which to live one's life. The car has become the driver. Each of the models, bar one, listed above define limits: instead of seeing these limits as the extent of the model's domain, we simply cease to think beyond them. Acceptance of a model qua model negates the error of truth; non-attachment negates that of identification.

A different kind of model

Only the holographic model avoids the pitfalls of limits and dogma. Its simple assertion is that all things are interconnected, that each part somehow contains the whole. It places no limits on thinking or experience, contains no hook on which to hang attachment. It effectively validates all other models as both right AND wrong, right in the sense that they exist and have limited utility, wrong in the sense that they cannot be complete. That the majority of mainstream scientists openly reject the model is excellent confirmation of its validity as such.

Ultimately though, we should discard all models and just be. In this state, understanding gives way to knowledge, questions and paradox simply dissolve: there is an equilibrium between the egoic 'I' of individuality and the totality of cosmic consciousness in that the larger manifests within the smaller. There is no further requirement for a model.