One of the questions I find most compelling in my research for transitioning towards the Ecocene is the simple question of how to change. And one way I go about this is to understand what makes change for me personally possible, even if it is hard. Such as fasting. Moreover, I assume that change is fractal. Meaning that when something or someone changes on the micro-level, it also affects change on the macro level. I don’t see it as a straight line of cause and effect but rather as a field, similar to what Rupert Sheldrake calls morphic fields. He states, for example, that
“The more people who learn a new skill, such as snowboarding, the easier will it be for others to learn it because of morphic resonance from previous snowboarders.”
In my understanding, the morphic field is the ether of fractals. The micropatterns in my own life repeat themselves as the macro patterns of the world and vice versa. If I am greedy and competing with a colleague, I find greed and competition in the world. The more I practice greed and competition, the more likely it is that there is greed and competition.
I obviously can’t prove that this way of thinking is correct. Though, I find the logic from people like Sheldrake and Bernardo Kastrup about idealism and Jung’s archetypes compelling.
What I specifically appreciate about the fractal nature of reality is that it puts me in full responsibility to take action, which gives me a great sense of meaning in my life while at the same time acknowledging that the systems co-constitute myself. I am not a bounded individual that is independent. But to the contrary, I am a relational being entirely dependent on the rest of the world.
This way of thinking brings me into a paradoxical situation. It merges two opposing worldviews: individualism and relationality. One understands the individual as separate from the world. The other understands the individual as a dividual that is co-constituted by the world. I believe both are true.