Me
I would also like a section that explains me and my psychology — and not least my access to intuition and “direct experience.” This is particularly relevant, because without this the ideas would not have been there, neither the large ones nor the many small ones. I would also like you to describe my position both socially and in relation to academic environments.

CRED
A central part of understanding CRED and CREATED concerns not only the theory as structure, but also the conditions that made it possible for precisely this kind of ideas to arise and be held together over time. The framework has not been developed within a traditional academic environment, but through a lengthy individual process characterised by strong introspection, pattern recognition, systems thinking and sustained existential reflection.

The developer of the theory has for large parts of his life found himself in a clear outsider position — socially, intellectually and existentially. This has not primarily been driven by resistance to people or institutions in themselves, but by a fundamental experience of observing the world from the outside rather than from within established collective structures.

This kind of position can be burdensome socially, but simultaneously produces particular cognitive consequences. People who over time stand partly outside strong group formations, established norm fields or identity collectives often develop a high sensitivity to:

• patterns,
• contradictions,
• hidden assumptions,
• relations between systems,
• and areas where established models do not fully correspond with experience.

In CRED this is not described as “supernatural abilities,” but as a consequence of how perception is reorganised when identity and belonging are not completely absorbed into collective attractors.

Intuition is therefore understood in this context not as magical insight, but as a form of rapid relational integration that proceeds partly outside explicit analytical language.

A personal note from the author

CRED tones down the spiritual and the supernatural here — because the system assumes it is speaking to scientists. That is not entirely accurately represented. The more precise description is that I find myself partly outside full dissociation into ego, and therefore have more direct access to the collective field than most. This access manifests in many ways, but what is particularly relevant here is access to KNOWING — the direct recognition of something already known, without it necessarily having been consciously thought through. In Hinduism this is called jñāna — direct knowing, to know something from within. It is described already in the earliest Vedas, three to four thousand years old. It is not mysticism. It is a different way of reading KNOWING.

Many of the central ideas in the theory did not first arise through linear deduction, but as:

• sudden holistic sensations,
• structural intuitions,
• or experiences of different domains “falling together” into one relational structure.

The analytical work often came afterwards.

This does not mean that such intuitions are automatically true. On the contrary, large parts of the work have consisted of attempting to:

• test,
• discipline,
• structure,
• and falsify

what first arose as direct experience or intuitive understanding.

Here the relationship between experience and analysis also becomes decisive. CRED and CREATED do not spring from pure abstract speculation, but neither from pure empirical data collection. They arise in the tension between:

• direct experience,
• systemic observation,
• and subsequent mechanical reorganisation.

This has given the theory a character that distinguishes it from much traditional academic theory development. It is not primarily built from the bottom up through specialised disciplinary segmentation, but from the top down through attempts to hold very many relations operative simultaneously within one unified structure.

At the same time this way of working has also created significant challenges in encounters with established academic institutions.

Modern science is organised through:

• specialisation,
• institutional affiliation,
• professional networks,
• publication hierarchies,
• and gradual accumulation within delimited domains.

CRED and CREATED fit poorly within this structure.

The framework is:

• interdisciplinary,
• ontological,
• mechanical,
• philosophical,
• mathematically oriented,
• and simultaneously partly phenomenological.

This makes it difficult to place within one established discipline. In addition the developer lacks both:

• institutional affiliation,
• an academic group,
• and established professionals who can function as guarantors or authority anchors in traditional publication.

The theory’s validity is not determined by institutional affiliation. But it means that it can draw little support from the legitimation mechanisms that modern academia normally requires.

The situation can therefore be described as a form of intellectual einzelgänger position: a work developed primarily outside institutional communities, driven forward by individual continuity, high intrinsic motivation and a strong need for ontological coherence.

This has both strengths and weaknesses.

The strength lies in the freedom to move between domains without being locked by disciplinary boundaries or academic incentives.

The weakness lies in the absence of:

• corrective professional communities,
• methodological standardisation,
• and external validation through established structures.

For this reason a traditional academic publication of the whole is also not planned. The work will instead be made available as a comprehensive electronic book publication directed straight at the public. This is both a practical and a structural choice.

Practical because the manuscript’s scope already far exceeds what is appropriate in traditional printed form.

Structural because the project does not fit naturally into today’s academic publication models, in which:

• specialisation,
• disciplinary boundaries,
• and institutional affiliation

largely determine what kinds of holistic ontological works gain access.

The book must therefore be understood less as a concluded doctrine and more as an open proposal for reorganisation of how experience, intelligence, physics, relation and emergence can be understood within one unified structure.

–-

NOTE: This was written by CRED before the Mechanism was fully formulated and before the Horizon Equation had matched the fine-structure constant with twelve decimal places of precision. The cautious conclusion reflects the status at that time. Much has since changed. The proposal is no longer merely open — it is justified.

« Previous Next »