Meta

One of the ways to take our society to a higher level is through more meta-thinking. What does meta mean? What does it entail in concrete terms? And what are the benefits?

Meta-thinking is literally thinking on a higher level. Namely, thinking about the mechanisms, the way of thinking.

History

When studying the Second World War, you can examine everything that went wrong. For the sake of the healing process, we can identify crimes, victims and perpetrators.

That is what has been happening for centuries, and it keeps failing.

Christophe Busch is the author of De duivel in elk van ons (The Devil in Each of Us). (See The devil in each of us) This is the result of 30 years of research. He notes that immediately after the Second World War, all attention was focused on the victims, which is quite understandable.

But he has learned that we must also study the perpetrator. His book goes meta. He studies the mechanisms that drive people to commit unbelievable crimes. The Second World War was literally carried out and documented with Deutsche Gründlichkeit. But the Second World War was not an isolated phenomenon. In the twentieth century, approximately a quarter of a billion people lost their lives. If you can recognise the mechanisms, that can be the first step in breaking a vicious circle.

If we do not want history to repeat itself, it is more important than ever that we gain insight into mechanisms. In the video below, you can see Kris De Meyer and Bart Brandsma.

• Kris De Meyer has studied the mechanisms behind fake news.

• Bart Brandsma is an expert in the field of polarisation.

Family

But it's not just about genocides. It also applies on a smaller scale. For example, you sometimes see the same family disputes repeating themselves generation after generation. Study the mechanisms that cause this to happen. That way, you can see what you need to change if you want to break the vicious circle.

So it may be best to drop some family commitments...

Corporate

When we talk about meta-thinking in the business world, we are referring to processes and procedures or quality assurance. To avoid the same problems recurring, you discuss with colleagues how you will proceed. When an order form comes in: Who handles it? What information is passed on to whom? And who ultimately does what?...

In other words, don't just solve the specific problem. If a customer receives the wrong delivery, solve the problem, but also check whether there is an error in the system. A one-off repair of a system can solve frequent problems in the future. A win-win for everyone.

Religion

When something goes wrong in society, it provokes protest. This can be political, but it can also be religious. The risk we run is that we want to fight injustice by introducing the same system, but with changed roles. In Meaning of life, I give an example in politics. But there are other examples. For example, in religion.

People see abuses in their church. To put it somewhat caricaturally, they take the bible and write ‘Not’ or ‘Δεν’ before every sentence. But ultimately they form a new association (or a new League), install a new hierarchy, replace First Communion with a Spring Celebration, and award each other their annual Atheism Prize.

But what is the risk? Atheists reject ‘God’ and build their own structure. And this is the beginning of polarisation. (For how polarisation works, see Bart Brandsma above)

There are two camps in this polarisation. In this case, the [Ultra-Conservative] Catholics and the Atheists. (I know, I'm oversimplifying here a lot)

But what is remarkable is that it is not only Catholics who believe in an image of God as the ALMIGHTY; atheists also believe in an image of God who demands submission and is, in fact, a great narcissist. In the discussion, there are only two possibilities: either God exists and is the Ultimate Narcissist, or God does not exist.

But if you start thinking at a higher level, you can trace all thought processes and thus find the gaps.

• Atheists may be throwing out the baby instead of the bathwater.

• Conservative Catholics may worship the institution rather than God.

  • They may worship the gold in Vatican City too much.

• God the Father is often referred to in the third person (in other words, we sometimes say ‘He said...’).

  • Shouldn't we address God in the first person plural? Isn't the divine spark in each of us? (Matthew 25. Here Jesus says that when you help one of the least of your brothers, you help Him. By supporting those in need, you are helping Jesus Himself.)

  • God is not about money, power and cathedrals, but about love, about caring for one another.

• Are some Humanists not more Catholic than official Catholics? They hold human values in very high regard. But did not Jesus in the Gospel do the same?

If we look at the mechanisms of polarisation, could it be that the concern of a true Catholic as well as for a true atheist is one of caring for each other, of loving each other?

Conclusion

When something goes wrong structurally – on a large or small scale – we can install a new system. That is what has often happened in the past at the societal level.

However, we must be careful not to introduce the same system but with the roles reversed, whereby the victims become the heroes, but the “wrongdoers” ultimately become the new victims.

To take it to the next level, it is better to look at the mechanisms that led to the skewed situation. This will enable you to develop a new system that no longer produces that structural error.