Why is transition from current dominant paradigm hard?

[rufuspollock]

This is a question we have been asking ourselves from the beginning of Life Itself (and before) and absolutely central to what we are up to. See e.g. https://lifeitself.us/2017/04/20/logic-of-our-purpose-and-reason-for-our-existence-scqh/

Here's a segment from Island by Aldous Huxley and some reflections on it

“You’re irretrievably committed to applied physics and chemistry, with all their dismal consequences, military, political and social. But the underdeveloped countries aren’t committed. They don’t have to follow your example. They’re still free to take the road we’ve taken—the road of applied biology, the road of fertility control and the limited production and selective industrialization which fertility control makes possible, the road that leads towards happiness from the inside out, through health, through awareness, through a change in one’s attitude towards the world; not towards the mirage of happiness from the outside in, through toys and pills and nonstop distractions. They could still choose our way; but they don’t want to, they want to be exactly like you, God help them. And as they can’t possibly do what you’ve done—at any rate within the time they’ve set themselves—they’re foredoomed to frustration and disappointment, predestined to the misery of social breakdown and anarchy, and then to the misery of enslavement by tyrants. It’s a completely foreseeable tragedy, and they’re walking into it with their eyes open.”

Note that key embedded question of why countries don't follow Pala's example:

They could still choose our way; but they don’t want to, they want to be exactly like you, God help them.

What is it that has them "not want to"? Huxley does not explore this question but I think it is a crucial one. It relates to the whole question of a transition to a new (wiser, weller) onto-social paradigm. The answer has various components, but the central is that the existing dominant onto-social paradigm is dominant, stable and sticky in various ways. First, it is "dominant" in a game-theoretic "physical" competitive sense: it produces more "resources" which can then be used to conquer others (and this is what happens to Pala at the end of Island). Until very recently this was a very real and ever present threat: that some other group though less wise and well but more aggressive and (physically) powerful could come along and take over.

Whilst, this is important part of the story I think it is only part, and the most obvious and "superficial". The second, part of the answer is that this paradigm is attractive psychologically: that the way of Pala is more subtle. The immediate rewards of TV, of consumerism, even of traditional mythic religion are strong and simple even if superficial and addictive (these are all "opiums of the people" for a reason). They tend to win out unless one carefully guards against them whilst simultaneously cultivating an alternative. Furthermore, these are self-reinforcing, or, more crudely put: addictive. Once you go down the path you tend to get locked in and want more of it. And these are quite powerful addictions. Whilst the other path, the path of awakening, also has its rewards it isn't addictive: yes, the rewards are ultimately deeper but they are more subtle (and require much more (near-term) effort). Neuroscientifically the path of awakening taps into much higher level, more complex,
more subtle systems than do the reward systems of consumerist capitalism which connect to the basics of sex, food, status (or, more generally mythic religion or authoritarian religion -- which connect to the sense of group and safety).

We now have covered the material and the psycho-spiritual dimensions (the outer and the inner). Put simply, on both dimensions, the old paradigm offers high immediate short-term payoffs even if in the longer-term it is very poor. This means that it requires a longer-term mindset to go beyond it.

Beyond these two points, there is an ecosystem aspect of this: these factors all interact making any existing equilibrium especially sticky. To get to a new "equilibrium" paradigm requires one to simultaneously (or close to simultaneously) switch both material and psycho-spiritual practice (and their interaction). This makes things even harder.

Does this mean that transition is impossible? No, not at all. In fact, as the old paradigm decays the "potential gap" in wealth and wellbeing is growing -- that is the gap between the current paradigm and the next. However, it does mean that a transition is neither simple nor automatic. Moreover, starting the transition whilst an old paradigm is very dominant requires particular thought and finesse.