The Heretic’s Curse

In 1517 Martin Luther, a professor of theology in the German town of Wittenberg, caused a stir by publishing his Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.

In a tract comprising 95 theses Luther strongly disputed the Catholic view on indulgences: that wealth might be utilised to quarantine the faithful from God’s punishment. Within two months this heresy had spread across Europe — helping to trigger the Reformation.

Although Luther certainly did not intend it to be so — given that he passionately believed it was his opponents who had fallen into heresy — the word heretic rapidly became a term of moral approval and integrity.

Not all disagreements are heresies of course. Heresies are philosophical disputes about our collective objective reality. As a consequence, they must seem to threaten mainstream beliefs, not simply individual values or practises. For this reason, the act of heresy relies on the existence of a canon of universally accepted ideas, the logic of which can be disputed.

For me the collective morality I contest is the set of beliefs and source models informing our civilisation’s prevailing worldview, and resulting world-system, which seem to trap us in circumstances that are increasingly toxic to human life and public-spirited enterprise. It is this shared reality, which creates the set of effects I refer to as the human condition, that I condemn. My definition of the human condition should not be confused with the efforts of others to explain the essential nature of our predicament — such as the purely biological view espoused by the Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith, for example.

Given the complex phenomena of our existence, tackling the range of entangled forces triggered by our species, coupled with the technologies we have invented, that have had such a colossal impact on the natural world, it is surely naïve to claim that the source of all our problems is the tragic conflict between good and evil. I do not doubt for one moment that the emotional relief that could come from transcending such extreme dualities, must be at least part of any solution. But if we are to genuinely free ourselves from the burden arising from the battle between instincts and knowledge, as expressed by Griffith, then clearly the renewal of the dominant worldview, springing from models of abundance and empathy rather than scarcity and competition, and aligned to a far more sophisticated appreciation of our interdependent nature, both to each other and to nature, will be vital, as will a substantial redesign of the many life-critical systems upon which we rely for our subsistence.

So, while I agree with Griffith that humans need to coevolve more consciously, I refute the proposition that a single behavioural solution, even if it does resolve the paradox of good versus evil, can shift the pervasive world-system to a more equitable and viable basis. If it is unreasonable to suppose any one factor can be responsible for the set of circumstances we have created during our time on this planet, it is also unreasonable to suppose that any single solution will be found to resolve or “heal” such a phenomenon.

Although we yearn for simplicity, adapting to shifting circumstances is more likely to entail (i) a fusion of new ontological conceptions, mindsets, interpretations and impulses, and (ii) a more comprehensive grasp of dynamic contextual patterns and our role in their making.

Part of the trap we are in, and once again I can empathise with Griffith on this point, is that it is safer and certainly far more comforting to accept the status quo — to stay in the warmth and security of Plato’s metaphorical cave. Resignation with how things are, to the extent that we see little reason to search for more virtuous and improved alternatives, is a denial of our capacity for continuous advancement — to reach for the stars. It is true that humans are plagued by denial of many kinds. We deny the predatory nature of capitalism, deny suggestions that charitable aid sustains inequality, deny the thought that schooling sucks the creativity out of children, and deny that militant feminism was not damaging to many ordinary men. Autocratic governments routinely deny they trample over human rights. Addicts deny heroin is harmful. And so on…

But here is where I really depart company from Griffith. For the human condition cannot be eliminated, nor can it be transcended — although it can develop in ways that appear to be healing. It is what it is, morphing in step with shifting external conditions as well as our collective resolve to change or not.

Moreover, improving one or more aspects of the human condition cannot just be a matter of individuals moving from a shared psychosis to a more integral (or emotionally mature) state. Improvement on a planetary scale requires shared collective insights, leading to wiser, more inclusive, implementation of second-order structural change. Cooperation of that kind requires a mutual morality. And that is where good intentions begin to unravel.

If we continue to deny that the strategies we commonly use to construct our world-system, such as rivalry, partition, objectification, status and economic stratification, are a problem, any form of mutual morality will continue to be missing from our worldview narratives, and consequently out of our reach behaviourally speaking.

This is why the denial which most concerns me is that which rationalises any absurd claim to have created the best of all possible worlds, to be climbing a peak of human progress, and to be set on a course that will ultimately benefit all humanity. I realise this is the story of the optimist and that optimism is in short supply these days. But to deny there could be more virtuous, healthier, benign, reliable, and beneficial possibilities for the human race in the future, is sheer blindness. To emerge from this blindness means being open to the radical renewal of the source of all these problems. The Western civilisational worldview.

Unconditional commitment in the form of a global covenant by incumbent leaders and their successors to act in unity on this matter is needed. All partisan and national interests must be put aside if the greater good is to prevail. They will need help from sage process facilitators and expert curators of discourse. They will need to use smart algorithms to cut through and digest vast volumes of knowledge. They will need potent visualisation tools to grasp the complexity of patterns that are constantly shifting, as well as to identify the most benign intervention points. Finally, they will need to find the courage and strength of mind to deconstruct their most intransigent beliefs so as to surface alternative models and philosophies. Trying to design a new worldview, from within the constraints of the current world-system, is doomed to fail.

In this instance, I believe leaders should work on three themes. All three of these themes will be deemed heretical by many, including those who deny there is a problem, but also those who deliberately set out to profit from the way they have rigged the current system. Ruling oligarchies — including corrupt politicians; arms dealers; crime syndicates; the large investment banks; media barons; companies that monopolise and control life-critical systems such as water, healthcare, and the food chain; and even institutions that tread a more orthodox and cautious path in order to sustain the status quo.

Growing numbers of the human family are desperately seeking a more benign, inclusive, universally equitable, and ethically defensible worldview. This worldview must be crafted in ways that are compelling and optimistic, but express new wisdom.

The stories we tell ourselves today, and the beliefs embedded in those stories, have been responsible for most of the problems we are trying to fix. At the same time, they illuminate why many of our existing beliefs are unsustainable. But to tell new stories, interlaced with new beliefs, requires a profound understanding of why and how the source models we chose to trust have actually deflected our original intentions. Without new insights we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, continuously recycling the old episteme in a deluded conviction we are inventing a new paradigm.

There are really only five metamodels that need our attention. They all happen to fit into an occidental ontology, unmistakably demonstrating the ascendancy of Western thought and customs during the past few hundred years. Teleological mythology — particularly the cult of the individual — is the most dominant of these. Meanwhile scientific realism, moral dualism, Cartesian logic, and economic theories obsessed with ownership, growth, and debt, continually reify the supremacy of Western cosmology in this context.

In view of their intended and unintended consequences all five should be reconsidered. I am not implying that we overlook the immense value that has accrued to many individuals from the widespread use of these models, especially in the old Occidental empires. But in terms of their inexorable elitism, influence, and reach, their innate tenets are increasingly troublesome to a majority of humanity. More inclusive alternatives must be found if we expect to create a world that works for everyone.

For example, as we reject neoliberal political and economic orthodoxies and move into a fundamental repositioning of international monetary systems, undertakings geared solely to benefit individual financial gain, or facilitate continuous economic growth, may become ethically intolerable — particularly in a future where the even-handed sharing of resources becomes commonplace.

The prospect that the human workforce will decline dramatically, through the deployment of artificially super-intelligent machines and 3D printing, means we are sure to experiment with concepts such as a guaranteed minimum income for every citizen. In addition, we will probably re-evaluate how pre-industrial organisational forms, like mutual societies, guilds and cooperatives, can better facilitate more equitable forms of community engagement and exchange.

The opportunity offered by commons-based initiatives and blockchain technologies, even cryptocurrencies backed by gold or other precious metals, will in due course lead to the unshackling of excessive state control. As local and parochial activities take on much more administrative relevance I envisage the need for some form of panarchical governance to fill the void created by the retreat of state bureaucracies.

Underpinning all of this will be an epiphany that objectification of all kinds must give way to a new humanitarian pluralism. The dominant narrative will also shift — from competition in a world of scarcity to cooperation in a world of abundance. The hoped-for resurgence of matristic lore (and law) along with empathy and compassion will go a long way to heal the numerous rifts and damage that have occurred from thinking in dualistic opposites. Humanity will come together through changes of this nature.

I dare say this new world will be unrecognisable from that in which we live today. Not from the technical gadgets and marvels that will certainly continue to alter how we make things, communicate, and transact business. Not from the new urban spaces featuring vertical gardens, hydrogen vehicles, and social meeting places. Not from the sensors embedded within and connecting every object. Not even from the new cityscapes displacing roads, offices and factories.

Indeed, the most fundamental change will not be any of the familiar physical infrastructure we see around us each day. On the contrary, for all the technocratic hype surrounding an imminent fourth industrial revolution, this uprising will be one of mindful consciousness, and thus invisible to the naked eye. From any conventional viewpoint, today this mindful uprising will feature the most improbable of transformations. The emotional conversion of our species that creates an ambient global state of connection and compassion. A new, and certainly far less enervating, human condition where fear and anger have turned to mutual respect, anxiety and conflict have dissipated, and where people from all walks of life and cultures know that everything is now possible.

I realise that this heresy threatens today’s collective trust. But this trust has already eroded to the point of collapse. Governments can no longer fulfil the promises made prior to their election. Some do not even try. Corporations cannot separate service to their customers from the rights of shareholders. Social media convey lies and half-truths. Once-venerable institutions are now part of a society that has been rigged to benefit the establishment.

And so heresy this must remain. For the moral values we once identified as being worthy of our advocacy and support, and to which we remain blindly loyal, are no longer that. They are mostly toxic in their impact. And yet they remain an inconvenient taboo — off-limits to any rational, intelligent conversation, that would challenge their legitimacy.

I am not an accidental heretic although I do not claim sole authorship of this creed. My heresy is to threaten what I regard as an illegitimate status quo and a wayward elite and to talk about this deliberately and openly. Like Luther I cannot recant and, like him, I grasp that the moral and intellectual questions around which these heresies coalesce are not fathomable in the normal sense.

As far as I am aware there is no scientific evidence or analytical knowledge that will finally settle arguments about the nature of human consciousness. And when questions such as these have no final answers they can only be decided by contests of political force, if they are to be decided at all. And yet in spite of this I am comforted in my belief that eventually these ideas will become mainstream — propelled by the momentum of virtue and common sense. There can be no compromise as that will seem indistinguishable from treachery. In effect, the betrayal of the human experiment on the cusp of an evolutionary breakthrough.